Ambedkar, Vol. 01

Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

(14th April 1891 - 6th December 1956)

An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels
for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts.
In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously
communicated and shared. There should be varied and free
points of contact with other modes of association. In other
words there should be social endosmosis. This is fraternity,
which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is
not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of
associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It
is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards
fellowmen.

- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

in ‘Annihilation of Caste’

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR
WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
VOL. 1

Compiled

by

Vasant Moon

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches

Vol. 1

First Edition by Education Department, Govt, of Maharashtra : 14 April, 1979
Re-printed by Dr. Ambedkar Foundation : January, 2014

ISBN (Set) : 978-93-5109-064-9

Courtesy : Monogram used on the Cover page is taken from
Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar’s Letterhead.

Secretary

Education Department
Government of Maharashtra

Price : One Set of 1 to 17 Volumes (20 Books) : Rs. 3000/-

Publisher :

Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt, of India

15, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001

Phone : 011-23357625, 23320571, 23320589

Fax : 011-23320582

Website : www.ambedkarfoundation.nic.in

The Education Department Government of Maharashtra, Bombay-400032
for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Publication Committee

Printer

M/s. Tan Prints India Pvt. Ltd., N. H. 10, Village-Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana

Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment
& Chairperson, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Kumari Selja

MESSAGE

Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chief Architect of Indian Constitution was
a scholar par excellence, a philosopher, a visionary, an emancipator and a true
nationalist. He led a number of social movements to secure human rights to the
oppressed and depressed sections of the society. He stands as a symbol of struggle
for social justice.

The Government of Maharashtra has done a highly commendable work of
publication of volumes of unpublished works of Dr. Ambedkar, which have brought
out his ideology and philosophy before the Nation and the world.

In pursuance of the recommendations of the Centenary Celebrations Committee
of Dr. Ambedkar, constituted under the chairmanship of the then Prime Minister
of India, the Dr. Ambedkar Foundation (DAF) was set up for implementation of
different schemes, projects and activities for furthering the ideology and message
of Dr. Ambedkar among the masses in India as well as abroad.

The DAF took up the work of translation and publication of the Collected Works
of Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar published by the Government of Maharashtra
in English and Marathi into Hindi and other regional languages. I am extremely
thankful to the Government of Maharashtra’s consent for bringing out the works
of Dr. Ambedkar in English also by the Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.

Dr. Ambedkar’s writings are as relevant today as were at the time when these
were penned. He firmly believed that our political democracy must stand on the
base of social democracy which means a way of life which recognizes liberty,
equality and fraternity as the principles of life. He emphasized on measuring the
progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved.
According to him if we want to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also
in fact, we must hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and
economic objectives. He advocated that in our political, social and economic life,
we must have the principle of one man, one vote, one value.

There is a great deal that we can learn from Dr. Ambedkar’s ideology and
philosophy which would be beneficial to our Nation building endeavor. I am glad
that the DAF is taking steps to spread Dr. Ambedkar’s ideology and philosophy
to an even wider readership.

I would be grateful for any suggestions on publication of works of Babasaheb
Dr. Ambedkar. ,

(Kum

Collected Works of Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar (CWBA)

Editorial Board

Kumari Selja

Minister for Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt, of India

and

Chairperson, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Shri Manikrao Hodlya Gavit

Minister of State for Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt, of India

Shri P. Balram Naik

Minister of State for Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt, of India

Shri Sudhir Bhargav

Secretary

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt, of India

Shri Sanjeev Kumar

Joint Secretary

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt, of India

and

Member Secretary, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Shri Viney Kumar Paul

Director

Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Shri Kumar Anupam

Manager (Co-ordination) - CWBA

Shri Jagdish Prasad ‘Bharti’

Manager (Marketing) - CWBA

Shri Sudhir Hilsayan

Editor, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material
Publication Committee, Maharashtra State

EDITORIAL BOARD

1. Shki Kamalkishor Kadam
Minister For Education

2. Shri Javed Khan
Education Minister For State

3. Shri R. S. Gavai

4. Shri Dadasaheb Rupavate

5. Shri B. C. Kamble

6. Dr. P. T. Bor at, f,

7. Shri Ghanshyam Talvatkar ...

8. Shri Shankarrao Kharat

9. Shrimati Shantabai Dani

10. Shri Waman Nimbalkar

11. Shri Prakash Ambedkar

12. Shri R. R. Bhole

13. Shri S. S. Rege

14. Dr. Bhalchandra Phadke

15. Shri Daya Pawar

16. Shri Laxman Mane

17. Prof. N. D. Patil

18. Prof. Moreshwar Vanmali

19. Prof. Janardan Waghmare

20. Barrister P. G. Patil

21. Dr. M. P. Mangudkar

22. Prof. G. P. Pradhan

23. Shri B. M. Ambhaikar

24. Shri N. M. Kamble

25. Prof. J. C. Chandurkar

26. Secretary, Education Department

27. Director of Education

28. Shri V. W. Moon, O.S.D.

. President

. Vice-President

. Vice-President
. Executive President
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member
. Member-Secretary
. Member

FOREWORD

Maharashtra is a land of saints and sages, philosophers and political
savants, social thinkers, social reformers and leaders of national
eminence, who have not only moulded and enriched all facets of
life of Maharashtra but have also made singular contribution to the
growth and development of India.

Maharashtra, an ancient land in the Deccan, has witnessed the
flowering, growth and spread of the Buddhist thought and culture
and Sanskrit Scholarship. We have saints like Namdeo, Eknath,
Chokhamela, Sawata Maharaj, Gora, Dnyaneshwar, Sena and others.
We also see the rise of Indian Nationalism in the form of Shivaji
the Great. In Mahatma Phuley, a contemporary of Karl Marx, we
have the ‘patria protestas of the Indian social revolution and the
first leader of the peasants. Lokmanya Tilak has been accredited as
the Father of Indian unrest, Ranade as the Father of Indian socio-
economic thought, Gokhale as the thinker whom no less a person
than Mahatma Gandhi acclaimed as his political Guru and Savarkar
as an ardent revolutionary. In Shahu Chhatrapati, we had a unique
king who was a relentless fighter for social equality. Maharshi Shinde
was a great social reformer who combined revolutionary fervour with
a liberal attitude. Thus, there has been a galaxy of great men in
different fields in Maharashtra. It may not be too much to say that
there was a time in pre-independent India when Maharashtra had
virtually become the centre of all activities, whether social, economic
or political. The period from Phuley to Ambedkar can, therefore, be
aptly described as the dawn of social revolution in the history not
only of Maharashtra but of the country as a whole.

VIII

FOREWORD

In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, we have not only a crusader against
the caste system, a valiant fighter for the cause of the downtrodden
in India but also an elder statesman and national leader whose
contribution in the form of the Constitution of India will be cherished
forever by posterity. In fact his fight for human rights and as an
emancipator of all those enslaved in the world gave him international
recognition as a liberator of humanity from injustice, social and
economic. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru paid a glowing tribute to
Dr. Ambedkar while moving a condolence resolution in the Parliament
as follows:

“Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was a symbol of revolt against all oppressive features

of the Hindu Society.”

There is, therefore, a vital need to preserve the thoughts of this great
son of India as expressed by him in his writings and speeches. While
some efforts are being made in that direction by some institutions
and research scholars, there is an urgent need to bring together all
the material available and publish it in a series of volumes.

The Government of Maharashtra has, under its various schemes,
so far published the works of Mahatma Phuley, Mahatma Gandhi
and saints such as Tukaram, Dnyaneshwar, Namdeo, Eknath and
others. The Government had set up an Advisory Committee in 1976,
with the Education Minister as the Chairman and comprising political
followers of Dr. Ambedkar, scholars and noted writers, to compile the
thoughts and writings of Dr. Ambedkar and have them published.
The Committee set up the following Editorial Board :

(1) Prof. M. B. Chitnis, Chairman

(2) Prof. Anant Kanekar

(3) Dr. P. T. Borale

(4) Dr. Vinayakrao E. Moray

(5) Shri S. P. Bhagwat

(6) Shri G. M. Bomblay, Director, Stale Institute of Education,
Pune

(7) Shri Vasant Moon, Officer on Special Duty

The Government of Maharashtra desires to bring a series of
volumes comprising all the available writings and speeches of

FOREWORD

rx

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. The present publication is the result of
sustained work done by the Advisory Committee and particularly
by the Editorial Board. I thank all the members of the Editorial
Board, Mrs. Savita w/o Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Mrs. Meerabai
Yeshwant Ambedkar and Shri Prakash Ambedkar, for their willing
co-operation. I am particularly glad that this long awaited commitment
is being fulfilled. I sincerely hope that people in general and the
youth in particular, in Maharashtra and all over the country, will
derive inspiration and guidance from the thoughts of Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar and come forward to contribute their mite for the social
reconstruction of the country.

(SHARAD PAWAR)

Chief Minister
Maharashtra State

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

It is almost ten years since the first edition of the first volume of the
Writings and Speeches of Dr. B.R. alias Babasaheb Ambedkar was published.
During these ten years the Government could publish six volumes of Writings
and Speeches of Dr. Ambedkar who has emerged from these pages as a
constructive social reformer and legal philosopher who in the originality
of his analysis and profundity of his convictions and conceptions compels
comparison with the best minds of the East and the West and who still
shapes our thinking. It is not difficult to discern the reasons for the Second
Edition against this background. We have availed of this opportunity to
correct obvious printing errors in the Second Edition of the first volume
which contains Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions such as Castes in India;
Annihilation of Caste; Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province; Need for checks
and balances; Thoughts on Linguistic States; Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah;
Evidence before the Southborough Committee; Federation Vs. Freedom;
Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve it; States and Minorities; Small
Holdings in India; and Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society. In all
these apparently diverse topics, it is not difficult to discern the silver strands
of fundamental reflections on the value of equality as the comer stone of
the constitutional polity in democracy. It is interesting to refer to what Dr.
Ambedkar writes apropos of Mr. Russell and the reconstruction of society
which is a review of Bertrand Russell’s ‘Principles of Social Reconstruction.’
Writes Dr. Ambedkar :

“Of the many reasons urged in support of the Indian view of life one is that
it is chiefly owing to its influence that India alone of all the oldest countries
has survived to this day. This is a statement often heard and even from persons
whose opinions cannot be too easily set aside. With the proof or disproof,
however, of this statement, I do not wish to concern myself. Granting the fact
of survival I mean to make a statement yet more important. It is this: there
are many modes of survival and not all are equally commendable. For instance,
mobility to beat timely retreat may allow weaker varieties of people to survive.

So the capacity to grovel or lie low may equally as the power of rising to the
occasion be the condition of the survival of a people.”

Dr. Ambedkar drawing copiously on his vast erudition, eloquently citing
Burke, depicts the ideal society in Annihilation of Caste. He says: “If you ask
me, my ideal would be a society based on liberty, equality and fraternity....
an ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a
change taking place in one part to other parts.” Dr. Ambedkar incorporated
these values of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Constitution of free
India. It is a living tribute to his juristic genius and social conscience that
over the years, the High Courts and the Supreme Court have shaped the
law to serve the social ends of Governmental efforts to improve the lot of
the poor.

XII

Dr. Ambedkar was a supreme social architect who looked upon law as
the instrument of creating a sane social order in which the development of
individual would be in harmony with the growth of society. His approach finds
a responsive chord in the writings of Roscoe Pound- an eminent American
jurist of our century. Writes Roscoe Pound:

“Law in the sense of the legal order has for its subject matter relations of
individual human beings with each other and the conduct of individual so far
as they affect other or affect the social or economic order. Law in the sense
of the body of authoritative grounds of or guides to judicial decisions and
administrative action has for its subject matter, the expectations of claims or
wants held or asserted by individual human beings or groups of human beings
which affect their relations or determine their conduct.”

Law embodies the civilisational values of the time and place. Civilisation
in this sense is the development of human faculties to their most complete
possibilities. Civilisation has two sides viz. control over external or physical
nature and control over internal or human nature. The Writings and Speeches
of Dr. Ambedkar show what values Indians should develop and how they
should modernise their social and political institutions. They provide the rich
source of the civilising influences in our society. The range of his topics, the
width of his vision, the depth of his analysis, the rationality of his outlook and
the essential humanity of his suggestions for action evoke ready responses.
Such was Dr. Ambedkar-a man whose talents, acquirements and virtues
were so extraordinary that the more his character is considered, the more
he will be regarded by the present age and by posterity with admiration
and reverence, to paraphrase the words of James Bosewell who spoke about
his mentor Dr. Johnson in his inimitable classical biography. We shall feel
rewarded in our efforts if we are compelled to bring out the third edition of
the Writings and Speeches in the centenary year of his birth, as that would
be the best way to cherish his memory and honour his precepts in practice.

(Kamalkishor Kadam)
Education Minister
Maharashtra State

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Ambedkar’s thoughts as reflected in his writings and speeches
have significant importance in tracing the history and growth of
social thought in India. In the course of time so many of his
publications are not even available in the market. In some cases the
authentic editions are getting out of print. Besides, as time passes,
many of his observations in matters social, economic and political
are coming true. Social tensions and caste conflicts are continuously
on the increase. Dr. Ambedkar’s thoughts have therefore, assumed
more relevance today. If his solutions and remedies on various socio-
economic problems are understood and followed, it may help us to
steer through the present turmoil and guide us for the future. It was
therefore very apt on the part of the Government of Maharashtra to
have appointed an Advisory Committee to compile all the material
available on Dr. Ambedkar for publishing the same in a suitable
form. All efforts are therefore being made to collect what the learned
Doctor wrote and spoke.

In the present volume, besides Castes in India. Annihilation of
Caste, his address on Justice Ranade. Federation versus Freedom
and other publications, some of his articles not easily available such
as Small Holdings in India, Review on Russell’s book etc. ; have also
been included.

The salient features of the contents of this volume are presented
below :

Castes in India

Dr. Ambedkar read this paper, before the Anthropology Seminar
of Dr. Goldenweizer during his stay at the Columbia University

XIV

INTRODUCTION

for the Doctoral studies. Naturally he deals with the subject of Caste
system from the Anthropological point of view. He observes that the
population of India is mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and
Scythians. Ethrically all people are heterogeneous. According to him,
it is the unity of culture that binds the people of Indian Peninsula
from one end to the other. After evaluating the theories of various
authorities on Caste, Dr. Ambedkar observes that the superimposition
of endogamy over exogamy is the main cause of formation of caste
groups. Regarding endogamy, he states that the customs of ‘Sati’,
enforced widow-hood for life and child-marriage are the outcome of
endogamy. To Dr. Ambedkar, sub-division of a society is a natural
phenomenon and these groups become castes through ex-communication
and imitation.

Annihilation of Caste

This famous address invited attention of no less a person than
Mahatma Gandhi. Dr. Ambedkar observes that the reformers among
the high-caste Hindus were enlightened intellectuals who confined
their activities to abolish the enforced widow-hood, child-marriage,
etc., but they did not feel the necessity for agitating for the abolition
of castes nor did they have courage to agitate against it. According
to him, the political revolutions in India were preceded by the social
and religious reforms led by saints. But during the British rule,
issue of political independence got precedence over the social reform
and therefore social reform continued to remain neglected. Pointing
to the. Socialists, he remarked that the Socialists will have to fight
against the monster of caste either before or after the revolution. He
asserts that caste is not based on division of labour. It is a division
of labourers. As an economic organisation also, caste is a harmful
institution. He calls upon the Hindus to annihilate the caste which is
a great hindrance to social solidarity and to set up a new social order
based on the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in consonance
with the principles of Democracy. He advocates inter-caste marriage
as one of the solutions to the problem. But he stresses that the belief
in the ‘Shastras’ is the root cause of maintaining castes. He therefore
suggests, “ Make every man and woman free from the thraldom of the

INTRODUCTION

XV

‘Shastras’, cleanse their minds of the pernicious notions founded on
the ‘Shastras’ and he or she will interdine and intermarry”. According
to him, the society must be bused on reason and not on atrocious
traditions of caste system.

Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province

Part II includes Dr. Ambedkar’s major writings on linguistic States.
Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province is his first statement on the
creation of linguistic provinces. It is a memorandum submitted in
1948 to the Linguistic Provinces Commission. While acknowledging
the danger to the Unity of India inherent in the creation of linguistic
provinces with their pride in race, language and literature developing
into mentalities of being separate nations, Dr. Ambedkar sees certain
definite political advantages in the reconstitution of provinces on
linguistic basis. With the proviso that the official language of the State
shall be the official language of the Central Government, Dr. Ambedkar
maintains that a linguistic province with a homogeneous population
is more suitable for the working of democracy than a heterogeneous
population can ever be. Since six provinces in India exist as linguistic
provinces the question of the reconstitution of Bombay, Madras and
Central Provinces as unilingual provinces cannot be postponed in view
of the new democratic constitution of free India.

Dr. Ambedkar next pleads for the creation of an unilingual
Maharashtra as a province with a single legislature and single executive
by merging with it all the contiguous Marathi-speaking districts of the
Central Province and Berar with the City of Bombay as its capital.
Dr. Ambedkar refutes on historical, geographical, demo graphical,
commercial, economic and other grounds with solid documentary
proof, the arguments which are advanced in support of the separation
of the city of Bombay from Maharashtra and its constitution into a
separate province. Spurning the proposal of settling the problem of
Bombay by arbitration he asserts that Maharashtra and Bombay are
not merely inter -dependent but that they are really one and integral.

Need for Checks and Balances

In this article published in the ‘Times of India’ after tracing the
history and growth of the concept of linguistic States Dr. Ambedkar

XVI

INTRODUCTION

examines their viability and communal set-up. The State of Andhra,
according to him will not be viable if the other Telugu-speaking area
from the State of Hyderabad remains excluded from it. The caste set
up, he observes, within the linguistic areas like PEPSU, Andhra and
Maharashtra will be of one or two major castes large in number and
a few minor castes living in subordinate dependence on the major
castes. He questions the propriety of consolidating in one huge State
all people who speak the same language. Consolidation which creates
separate consciousness may lead to animosity between State and
State. Accepting however the fact that there is a case for linguistic
provinces he advocates that there should be checks and balances to
ensure that caste majority does not abuse its power under the garb
of linguistic State.

Thoughts on Linguistic States

‘Thoughts on Linguistic States’ is Dr. Ambedkar’s final statement on
the formation of linguistic States that came as a critique of the report
of the States Reorganization Commission. What the Commission has
created, according to him, is not a mere disparity between the States
by leaving U.P. and Bihar as they are, but by adding to them a
new and bigger Madhya Pradesh with Rajasthan. R creates a new
political problem of the consolidated Hindi-speaking North versus the
balkanized South. Considering the vast cultural differences between
the two sectors and the apprehensions of dominance of the North
articulated by the leaders of the South Dr. Ambedkar predicts the
danger of a conflict between the two in course of time. He observes
that the Commission should have followed the principle of “one State
one language” and not “one language one State”

He favours formation of unilingual States as against multi-
lingual States for the very sound reasons that the former fosters
the fellow-feeling which is the foundation of a stable and
democratic State, while the latter with its enforced juxtaposition
of two different linguistic groups leads to faction fights for
leadership and discrimination in administration — factors which
are incompatible with democracy. His support for unilingual
States is however qualified by the condition that its official language

INTRODUCTION

XVII

shall be Hindi and until India becomes fit for this purpose, English
shall continue. He foresees the danger of a unilingual Stale developing
an independent nationality if its regional language is raised to the
status of official language.

To remove the disparity between the large States of the North and
the small States of the South which has been accentuated by the
absence of the provision for equal representation of the States in the
central legislature irrespective of their areas and populations, Dr.
Ambedkar’s remedy is to divide the larger States into units with a
population not exceeding two crores. He suggests tentatively division
of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh into two States each and of United
Provinces into three States. Each of these States being unilingual the
division will not affect the concept of a linguistic State. His proposal
for Maharashtra is to divide it, as in ancient times, into three States
of Western, Central and Eastern Maharashtra with Bombay City as
a separate city State of Maharashtra. Such smaller States, in his
opinion, will meet the requirements of efficient administration and the
special needs of different areas. It will also satisfy their sentiments.

In a smaller State the proportion of majority to minority which
in India is not political but communal and unchangeable, decreases
and the danger of the majority practising tyranny over the minority is
also minimised. To give further protection to minorities against such
tyranny, Dr. Ambedkar suggests amendment of the constitution that
will provide a system of plural-member constituencies (two or three)
with cumulative voting.

Dr. Ambedkar advocate’s also the creation of a second capital for
India and locating it in the South preferably in the city of Hyderabad
to ease the tension and political polarization of the North and the
South.

Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah

Dr. Ambedkar delivered this important address on the 101st birth
anniversary of Justice Ranade, one of India’s foremost political
and social thinkers. At the beginning of his address, Dr. Ambedkar
discusses the role of man as a maker of history. According to him.

XVIII

INTRODUCTION

the theory of Buckle that the history is created by Geography and
Physics, and that of Marx that it is the result of economic forces,
both speak the half truth. They do not give any place to man.
But Dr. Ambedkar asserts that man is a factor in the making of
history and that environmental forces alone are not the makers of
history.

Dr. Ambedkar further proceeds to discuss the tests of a great man
as propounded by Carlyle the apostle of Hero Worship, and also of
other political thinkers. After exhaustive discussion, he observes that
sincerity and intellect the combination of which are necessary to make
a man great. But these qualifications are not alone sufficient. A man
possessed of these two qualities must be motivated by the dynamics
of a social purpose and must act as a scavenger of society.

According to Dr. Ambedkar, Ranade was a great man by any
standard. He wanted to vitalize the Hindu society to create social
democracy. Ranade lived in times when social and religious customs,
however unmoral, were regarded as sacrosanct. What appeared to
Ranade to be shames and wrongs of the Hindu society, were considered
by the people to be most sacred injunctions of their religion. Ranade
wanted to vitalize the conscience of the Hindu society which became
moribund as well as morbid. Ranade aimed to create a real social
democracy, without which there could be no sure and stable politics.
Dr. Ambedkar points out that Ranade’s aim was to cleanse the old
order and improve the moral tone of the Hindu society.

Concluding his address, Dr. Ambedkar cautions against despotism.
He says, “Despotism does not cease to be despotism because it is elective.
Nor does despotism become agreeable because the Despots belong to

our own kindred The real guarantee against despotism is

to confront it with the possibility of its dethronement

of its being superseded by a rival party. ”

Evidence before the Southborough Committee

Dr. Ambedkar’s evidence before the Southborough Committee
was his first assay in political writings. The evidence comprises
of a written statement submitted to the Franchise Committee

INTRODUCTION

xrx

under the Chairmanship of Rt. Hon’ble Lord Southborough and
also of the oral evidence before the same Committee on January
27 , 1919 .

After arguing theoretically that any scheme of franchise and
constituency that fails to bring about representation of opinions
as well as representation of persons falls short of creating a
popular Government. He shows how very relevant the two
factors are in the context of the Indian society which is ridden
into castes and religious communities. Each caste group tends to
create its own distinctive type of like-mindedness which depends
upon the extent of communication, participation or endosmosis.
Absence of this endosmosis is most pronounced between touchable and
untouchable Hindus, more than between the religious communities
such as Hindus, Muslims, Parsees etc. These communities have on
secular plane common material interests. There will be in such groups
landlords, labourers and capitalists. The untouchables are, however,
isolated by the Hindus from any kind of social participation. They
have been dehumanised by socio-religious disabilities almost to the
status of slaves. They are denied the universally accepted rights of
citizenship. Their interests are distinctively their own interests and
none else can truly voice them.

On the population basis, Dr. Ambedkar demands for the
untouchables of the Presidency of Bombay, eight to nine
representatives in the Bombay Legislative Council with franchise
pitched as low for them as to muster a sizable electorate. While
reviewing the various schemes proposed by different organizations he
criticises the Congress scheme which offers communal representation
only to the Muslims and leaves untouchables to seek representation
in general electorate as typical of the ideology of its leaders who are
political radicals and social tories. He does not agree with the proposals
of moderates to reserve only one or two seats for the untouchables in
plural constituencies as this does not give them effective representation.
He brushes aside the proposal of the Depressed Class Mission for
nomination by co-option by the elected members of the Council as
an attempt to dictate to the untouchables what their good shall
be, instead of an endeavour to agree with them so that they may seek

XX

INTRODUCTION

to find the good of their own choice. The communal representation
with reserved seats for the most depressed community, he holds out,
will not perpetuate social divisions, but will act as a potent solvent for
dissolving them by providing opportunities for contact, co-operation and
re-socialisation of fossilised attitudes. Moreover it was the demand of
the untouchables for self-determination which the major communities
too were claiming from the British bureaucracy.

Federation versus Freedom

Dr. Ambedkar’s two addresses, “Federation vs. Freedom” and
“Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It” were delivered
by him before the Gokhale Institute of Economics. Pune on
January 29, 1939 and at the session of the All India Scheduled Castes
Federation held in Bombay on May 6, 1945 respectively. They are in
the nature of tracts of the time. In 1939 all major political parties
of India had accepted and some were even implementing that part
of the Government of India Act, 1935 which related to provincial
autonomy. The question of accepting the Federal structure at the
Centre was however, looming large on the political horizon of India.
Dr. Ambedkar who till then had not expressed in public his views
on the subject took the opportunity to do so before the learned body
of the Gokhale Institute of Economics.

In the address he sets out briefly the outline of the scheme
of Federation and examines it in the light of accepted tests of
democratic federations in operation. The examination reveals
that the scheme granted only a limited responsibility at the centre;
it has the potentiality to evolve into a dominion status. There is
inequality of status between the two sets of federating units viz. the
Provinces and the Princely States. Federation is a natural corollary of
autonomous provinces. They join the Federation as a natural course,
while accession of the princely States is governed by the various
conditions of their historical treaties with the British crown and the
instrument of accession they would sign. Accession of the States and
not only of the autonomous provinces, is the precondition for the
implementation of the Federation. The representation of the provinces
to the two Federal Houses is by election but the State representatives

INTRODUCTION

XXI

are the nominees of their autocratic rulers and owe their allegiance to
the rulers. These representatives will always be at the beck and call
of the British bureaucracy which yields paramountcy over the rulers.
Instead of fostering one all India nationalism, the Indian Princely
States being treated under the Federation as foreign territories will
encourage separatist tendencies. The scheme also does not permit
the Federal Legislature to discuss the conduct of the ruler nor the
administration of his State, though his nominees can participate in
the debate pertaining to a province and vote on the issue. As in the
matter of representation so too in that of taxation, administration,
legislation etc, there is, in the scheme discrimination in favour of
the princes. The princes thus become arbiters of the destiny of the
British India.

On these and several other counts Dr. Ambedkar rejects the Federal
structure as envisaged by the Government of India Act of 1935. His
solution of the problem of the States is, to regard it not as a political
one but as an administrative one. To tackle it legally is to pension
off princes and annexe their territories as is done under the Land
Acquisition Act which allows private rights and properties to be
acquired for political purposes.

According to Dr. Ambedkar, excepting the Princes, and the Hindu
Mahasabha which felt that the accession of the Princes was an accretion
to the Hindu strength, no major political party was happy with the
scheme of the Federation. The view of the freeman and of the poor
man of whom the Federation does not seem to take any account says
Dr. Ambedkar, will be a similar one. If the Federation comes the
autocracy of the Princes will be a menace to the freedom of a freeman
and obstacle to the poor man who wants constitution to enable him
to have old values revalued and to have vested rights devastated.

Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It

“Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It” is yet another
tract of the time included in this volume. It purports to be a
constructive proposal put forth on behalf of the Scheduled
Castes for the future constitution of India. This plan was one
of the many advanced by Dr. Ambedkar’s contemporaries to
explore the possibility of solving the communal problem in the

XXII

INTRODUCTION

eventful year of 1945. Earlier, in 1941. Dr. Ambedkar had
advocated creation of Pakistan on the principle of self-determination’
and also as a historical necessity. The present tract sets out an
alternative plan which in his opinion would ensure a United India,
where with proper checks and balances interests of all minorities
would be safeguarded.

He is wholly opposed to the setting of a Constituent Assembly
before the communal problem is solved. Moreover India has already
constitutional ideas and constitutional forms ready at hand in the
Government of India Act of 1935. All that is necessary is to delete
those sections of the Act, which are inconsistent with Dominion status.
If at all there is to be a Constituent Assembly, says Dr. Ambedkar.
the communal question should not form a part of it.

After examining the two schemes for Constituent Assembly one each
by Sir Stafford Cripps and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Dr. Ambedkar
concludes that both the schemes leave the communal question unsolved.
In his opinion all such schemes and plans advocated so far fail because
of their wrong approach. They proceed by a method instead of by a
principle. The ultimate result is constant appeasement of ever-growing
demands of communal minorities.

The principle he enunciates is that in India majority being communal
majority and not a convertible political majority, the majority rule is
untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice. The major community
should be content with relative majority. Even this should not be so
large as to enable it to secure an absolute majority by coalition with
a smaller minority to establish its rule. In the same way the major
minority should also not have the possibility to secure a majority by
similar combination. The combination of all minorities should however
have an absolute majority in the legislature. Dr. Ambedkar has set
out in detail how the application of these principles would reflect
community -wise in the central and provincial legislatures.

Dr. Ambedkar’s proposal is mainly for a United India; but
even if the partition of India eventuates, he expects, the Muslims
of Pakistan not to deny the benefit of these principles to

INTRODUCTION

XXIII

non-Muslim residents of their country. Their co-religionists, who
otherwise would be a helpless minority in India, will have their interests
safeguarded by the acceptance of these principles. Abandonment of
the principle of majority rule in politics cannot, in the opinion of Dr.
Ambedkar, affect the Hindus in other walks of life such as social
and economic.

States and Minorities

States and minorities is a memorandum on the safeguards for the
minorities in general and the Scheduled Castes in particular drafted
by Dr. Ambedkar and submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf
of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation in the year 1 946. It is
in the form of draft articles of a constitution, followed by explanatory
notes and other statistics.

The memorandum sets out in specific terms fundamental rights of
citizens, safeguards of the rights of minorities and Scheduled Castes to
representation in the legislatures, local bodies, executive and services.
It also provides for special provisions for education and new settlement
of the Scheduled Castes in separate villages. The very first article is
allotted to the admission of Indian States into the Union which are
here classified as Qualified and Unqualified on admission to the
Union. The qualified State has an obligation to have an internal
government which is in consonance with the principles Underlying
the Constitution of the Union. The territory of the Unqualified states
will be treated as the territory of the Union.

The memorandum not only prescribes the rights and privileges of
the Scheduled Castes but also lays down the remedies in the event
of encroachment upon them. For this the author draws heavily from
his own memorandum submitted to the minorities of the Round
Table Conference in 1931. They are derived from the United States
statutes and amendments passed in the interest of the Negroes after
their emancipation and from the Burma Anti-boycott Act. One of the
novel features of the memorandum is the provision for the election of
the Prime Minister — Union and provincial — by the whole house
of the legislature, of the representatives of the different minorities in

XXIV

INTRODUCTION

the cabinet by members of each minority in the house and of the
representatives of the majority community in the executive again by
the whole house.

Another unique feature is the provision of remedies against invasion
of the fundamental rights of citizens of freedom from economic
exploitation and from want and fear. This is sought to be accomplished
by constitutional provision enforceable within ten years of the passing of
the constitution for alteration of the economic structure of the country.
In short by adopting state socialism, it envisages state ownership and
management of all key and basic industries and insurance. Agriculture
which is included in the key industries is to be organised on collectivised
method. Owners of the nationalised industries and land are to be
compensated in the form of debentures. The debenture-holders are
entitled to receive interest at such rates as defined by the law.

Small Holdings in India

The subjects of Dr. Ambedkar’s Doctoral thesis were in the disciplines
of economics only. The present paper was one of his articles dealing
with the problem of agricultural economy of the Country. Amongst
several problems of agricultural economy dealing with agricultural
production, Dr. Ambedkar chose the subject of the size of holdings as
it affects the productivity of agriculture.

Dr. Ambedkar in his paper points out that the holdings of
land in India are not small but they are also scattered. This
feature of Indian agriculture has caused great anxiety
regarding agriculture which Dr. Ambedkar designates as an industry.
The problems of these holdings are two-fold — (1) How to con-
solidate the holdings and (2) after consolidation, how to perpe-
tuate the said consolidation. The heirs of deceased in India desire
to secure share from each survey number of the deceased rather
than distributing complete holdings amongst themselves. This
has resulted into rendering the farming most inefficient and
causing several problems. Dr. Ambedkar discusses methods
for consolidation e.g., restripping, restricted sale of the occupancy
of the fragmented land to the contagious holder and the right of

INTRODUCTION

XXV

pre-emption. In this connection Dr. Ambedkar discusses the report
of the Baroda Committee and the proposals of Prof. Jevons and
Mr. Keatinge, and points out that the consolidation may obviate the
evils of scattered holdings, but it will not obviate the evils of small
holdings unless the consolidated holding becomes an economic holdings.

While discussing the terms of economic holding, Dr. Ambedkar

observes, “Mere size of land is empty of all economic connotation

It is the right or wrong proportion of other factors of production to
a suit of land that renders the latter economic or uneconomic”. Thus
a small farm may be economic as well as a large farm. Verifying
the statistics at length, he concludes that “the existing holdings are
uneconomic, not, however, in the sense that they are too small but
that they are too large” as against the inadequacy of other factors of
production. He therefore suggests that the remedy lies in not enlarging
the holding but in the matter of increasing capital and capital goods.

According to Dr. Ambedkar, the evil of small holding is the product
of mal-adjustment of the Indian social economy. A large part of
population of superfluous and idle labour exerts high pressure on
agriculture. He tries to analyse how to remedy the ills of agriculture
and suggests that industrialization of India is the soundest remedy
for the agricultural problems of India.

Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society

While reviewing the book “ Principles of Social Reconstruction”
by the Honourable Mr. Bertrand Russell, Dr. Ambedkar deals
only with the analysis of the institution of Property and the modi-
fications it is alleged to produce in human nature. Commenting
on the observations of Mr. Russell on the philosophy of war.
Dr. Ambedkar opines that Mr. Russell is against war but is not
for quieticism. Quieticism is another name of death. Activity
leads to growth. He suggests that to achieve anything we must use
force ; only we must use it constructively as energy and not destructively
as violence. The pacifist Mr. Russell, according to Dr. Ambedkar,
thinks that even war is an activity leading to the growth

XXVI

INTRODUCTION

of the individual and condemns it only because it results in death and
destruction. He therefore thinks that Russell would welcome milder
forms of war.

Dr. Ambedkar further discusses the analysis of effects of property
as propounded by Mr. Russell. Regarding the mental effects of
property, he finds that Russell’s discussion on this aspect is marked
by certain misconceptions. Criticising the statement about “love of
money” as interpreted by Mr. Russell, Dr. Ambedkar points out that
there is genuine difference in the outlook of the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.
Hence their attitude about money will be different. According to him,
Mr. Russell failed to inquire into the purpose of the love of money
which has given rise to wrong conception. Dr. Ambedkar feels that
this thesis is shaky from the production side of our life.

He further proceeds to discuss and prove how the above proposition
is also untenable from the consumption side of life. Here the learned
Doctor enters into a psychological discussion of the desires and
pleasures. We leave this interesting discussion to be read by the readers
in original without taking their much time.

The editors do not claim to have covered all the main features of
the closely reasoned arguments of the learned Doctor in the present
volume.

Members of the Editorial Board are deeply indebted to the Hon’ble
Chief Minister of Maharashtra State, Shri Sharad Pawar and Hon’ble
Minister for Education, Shri Sadanand Varde, for their valuable
help, guidance and co-operation in bringing out this volume. We are
also grateful to Shri Sapre, the Director of Government Printing and
Stationery, and his staff for having helped us in bringing out this
book in record time.

MEMBERS
EDITORIAL BOARD

CONTENTS

FOREWARD .. .. .. vii

PREFACE .. .. .. xi

INTRODUCTION .. .. .. xiii

PAGE

PART I

ON CASTE

1 Castes in India .. .. .. 3

2 Annihilation of Caste .. .. .. 23

PART II

ON LINGUISTIC STATES

3 Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province .. 99

4 Need for Checks and Balances .. .. 129

5 Thoughts on Linguistic States .. .. 137

PART III

ON HERO AND HERO-WORSHIP

6 Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah .. .. 205

PART IV

ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

7 Evidence before the Southborough Committee .. 243

8 Federation versus Freedom .. 279

9 Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It .. 355

10 States and Minorities .. .. .. 381

PART V

ON ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

11 Small Holdings in India .. .. .. 453

12 Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society 481

INDEX

493

PART I

ON CASTE

1

CASTES IN INDIA

Their Mechanism, Genesis and
Development

Paper read before
the Anthropology Seminar
of

Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer
at

The Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.

on

9th May 1916

From: Indian Antiquary, May 1917, Vol. XLI

CASTES IN INDIA

Many of us, I dare say, have witnessed local, national or international
expositions of material objects that make up the sum total of human
civilization. But few can entertain the idea of there being such a thing as
an exposition of human institutions. Exhibition of human institutions is a
strange idea ; some might call it the wildest of ideas. But as students of
Ethnology I hope you will not be hard on this innovation, for it is not so,
and to you at least it should not be strange.

You all have visited, I believe, some historic place like the ruins of Pompeii,
and listened with curiosity to the history of the remains as it flowed from the
glib tongue of the guide. In my opinion a student of Ethnology, in one sense
at least, is much like the guide. Like his prototype, he holds up (perhaps
with more seriousness and desire of self-instruction) the social institutions
to view, with all the objectiveness humanly possible, and inquires into their
origin and function.

Most of our fellow students in this Seminar, which concerns itself with
primitive versus modern society, have ably acquitted themselves along
these lines by giving lucid expositions of the various institutions, modern
or primitive, in which they are interested. It is my turn now, this evening,
to entertain you, as best I can, with a paper on “Castes in India : Their
mechanism, genesis and development”

I need hardly remind you of the complexity of the subject I intend to
handle. Subtler minds and abler pens than mine have been brought to the
task of unravelling the mysteries of Caste ; but unfortunately it still remains
in the domain of the “unexplained”, not to say of the “un-understood” I am
quite alive to the complex intricacies of a hoary institution like Caste, but I
am not so pessimistic as to relegate it to the region of the unknowable, for
I believe it can be known. The caste problem is a vast one, both theoretically
and practically. Practically, it is an institution that portends tremendous
consequences. It is a local problem, but one capable of much wider mischief,

6

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

for “as long as caste in India does exist, Hindus will hardly intermarry or
have any social intercourse with outsiders ; and if Hindus migrate to other
regions on earth, Indian caste would become a world problem.” 1 Theoretically,
it has defied a great many scholars who have taken upon themselves, as
a labour of love, to dig into its origin. Such being the case, I cannot treat
the problem in its entirety. Time, space and acumen, I am afraid, would
all fail me, if I attempted to do otherwise than limit myself to a phase of
it, namely, the genesis, mechanism and spread of the caste system. I will
strictly observe this rule, and will dwell on extraneous matters only when
it is necessary to clarify or support a point in my thesis.

To proceed with the subject. According to well-known ethnologists, the
population of India is a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and
Scythians. All these stocks of people came into India from various directions
and with various cultures, centuries ago, when they were in a tribal state.
They all in turn elbowed their entry into the country by fighting with their
predecessors, and after a stomachful of it settled down as peaceful neighbours.
Through constant contact and mutual intercourse they evolved a common
culture that superseded their distinctive cultures. It may be granted that
there has not been a thorough amalgamation of the various stocks that make
up the peoples of India, and to a traveller from within the boundaries of
India the East presents a marked contrast in physique and even in colour
to the West, as does the South to the North. But amalgamation can never
be the sole criterion of homogeneity as predicated of any people. Ethnically
all people are heterogeneous. It is the unity of culture that is the basis of
homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country
that can rival the Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of its culture.
It has not only a geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper
and a much more fundamental unity — the indubitable cultural unity that
covers the land from end to end. But it is because of this homogeneity that
Caste becomes a problem so difficult to be explained. If the Hindu Society
were a mere federation of mutually exclusive units, the matter would be
simple enough. But Caste is a parcelling of an already homogeneous unit,
and the explanation of the genesis of Caste is the explanation of this process
of parcelling.

Before launching into our field of enquiry, it is better to advise ourselves
regarding the nature of a caste I will therefore draw upon a few of the best
students of caste for their definitions of it:

(1) Mr. Senart, a French authority, defines a caste as “a close corporation,
in theory at any rate rigorously hereditary : equipped with a certain
traditional and independent organisation, including a chief and a
council, meeting on occasion in assemblies of more or less plenary

1. Ketkar, Caste , p. 4.

CASTES IN INDIA

7

authority and joining together at certain festivals : bound together
by common occupations, which relate more particularly to marriage
and to food and to questions of ceremonial pollution, and ruling its
members by the exercise of jurisdiction, the extent of which varies,
but which succeeds in making the authority of the community more
felt by the sanction of certain penalties and, above all, by final
irrevocable exclusion from the group”.

(2) Mr. Nesfield defines a caste as “a class of the community which disowns
any connection with any other class and can neither intermarry nor
eat nor drink with any but persons of their own community”.

(3) According to Sir H. Risley, “a caste may be defined as a collection of
families or groups of families bearing a common name which usually
denotes or is associated with specific occupation, claiming common
descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, professing to
follow the same professional callings and are regarded by those who
are competent to give an opinion as forming a single homogeneous
community”.

(4) Dr. Ketkar defines caste as “a social group having two characteristics :
(i) membership is confined to those who are born of members and
includes all persons so born ; (ii) the members are forbidden by an
inexorable social law to marry outside the group”.

To review these definitions is of great importance for our purpose. It will
be noticed that taken individually the definitions of three of the writers
include too much or too little : none is complete or correct by itself and all
have missed the central point in the mechanism of the Caste system. Their
mistake lies in trying to define caste as an isolated unit by itself, and not
as a group within, and with definite relations to, the system of caste as a
whole. Yet collectively all of them are complementary to one another, each
one emphasising what has been obscured in the other. By way of criticism,
therefore, I will take only those points common to all Castes in each of the
above definitions which are regarded as peculiarities of Caste and evaluate
them as such.

To start with Mr. Senart. He draws attention to the “idea of pollution”
as a characteristic of Caste. With regard to this point it may be safely said
that it is by no means a peculiarity of Caste as such. It usually originates
in priestly ceremonialism and is a particular case of the general belief in
purity. Consequently its necessary connection with Caste may be completely
denied without damaging the working of Caste. The “idea of pollution” has
been attached to the institution of Caste, only because the Caste that enjoys
the highest rank is the priestly Caste : while we know that priest and purity
are old associates. We may therefore conclude that the “idea of pollution”
is a characteristic of Caste only in so far as Caste has a religious flavour.

8

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mr. Nesfield in his way dwells on the absence of messing with those outside
the Caste as one of its characteristics. In spite of the newness of the point
we must say that Mr. Nesfield has mistaken the effect for the cause. Caste,
being a self-enclosed unit naturally limits social intercourse, including
messing etc. to members within it. Consequently this absence of messing
with outsiders is not due to positive prohibition, but is a natural result of
Caste, i.e. exclusiveness. No doubt this absence of messing originally due to
exclusiveness, acquired the prohibitory character of a religious injunction,
but it may be regarded as a later growth. Sir H. Risley, makes no new point
deserving of special attention.

We now pass on to the definition of Dr. Ketkar who has done much
for the elucidation of the subject. Not only is he a native, but he has also
brought a critical acumen and an open mind to bear on his study of Caste.
His definition merits consideration, for he has defined Caste in its relation
to a system of Castes, and has concentrated his attention only on those
characteristics which are absolutely necessary for the existence of a Caste
within a system, rightly excluding all others as being secondary or derivative
in character. With respect to his definition it must, however, be said that
in it there is a slight confusion of thought, lucid and clear as otherwise it
is. He speaks of Prohibition of Intermarriage and Membership by Autogeny
as the two characteristics of Caste. I submit that these are but two aspects
of one and the same thing, and not two different things as Dr. Ketkar
supposes them to be. If you prohibit intermarriage the result is that you
limit membership to those born within the group. Thus the two are the
obverse and the reverse sides of the same medal.

This critical evaluation of the various characteristics of Caste leave no doubt
that prohibition, or rather the absence of intermarriage — endogamy, to be
concise — is the only one that can be called the essence of Caste when rightly
understood. But some may deny this on abstract anthropological grounds, for
there exist endogamous groups without giving rise to the problem of Caste. In
a general way this may be true, as endogamous societies, culturally different,
making their abode in localities more or less removed, and having little to
do with each other are a physical reality. The Negroes and the Whites and
the various tribal groups that go by name of American Indians in the United
States may be cited as more or less appropriate illustrations in support of
this view. But we must not confuse matters, for in India the situation is
different. As pointed out before, the peoples of India form a homogeneous
whole. The various races of India occupying definite territories have more or
less fused into one another and do possess cultural unity, which is the only
criterion of a homogeneous population. Given this homogeneity as a basis,
Caste becomes a problem altogether new in character and wholly absent in
the situation constituted by the mere propinquity of endogamous social or

CASTES IN INDIA

9

tribal groups. Caste in India means an artificial chopping off of the population
into fixed and definite units, each one prevented from fusing into another
through the custom of endogamy. Thus the conclusion is inevitable that
Endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to caste, and if we
succeed in showing how endogamy is maintained, we shall practically have
proved the genesis and also the mechanism of Caste.

It may not be quite easy for you to anticipate why I regard endogamy as
a key to the mystery of the Caste system. Not to strain your imagination
too much, I will proceed to give you my reasons for it.

It may not also be out of place to emphasize at this moment that no
civilized society of today presents more survivals of primitive times than does
the Indian society. Its religion is essentially primitive and its tribal code, in
spite of the advance of time and civilization, operates in all its pristine vigour
even today. One of these primitive survivals, to which I wish particularly to
draw your attention is the Custom of Exogamy. The prevalence of exogamy
in the primitive worlds is a fact too wellknown to need any explanation.
With the growth of history, however, exogamy has lost its efficacy, and
excepting the nearest blood-kins, there is usually no social bar restricting
the field of marriage. But regarding the peoples of India the law of exogamy
is a positive injunction even today. Indian society still savours of the clan
system, even though there are no clans ; and this can be easily seen from
the law of matrimony which centres round the principle of exogamy, for it is
not that Sapindas (blood-kins) cannot marry, but a marriage even between
Sagotras (of the same class) is regarded as a sacrilege.

Nothing is therefore more important for you to remember than the fact
that endogamy is foreign to the people of India. The various Gotras of
India are and have been exogamous : so are the other groups with totemic
organization. It is no exaggeration to say that with the people of India
exogamy is a creed and none dare infringe it, so much so that, in spite of
the endogamy of the Castes within them, exogamy is strictly observed and
that there are more rigorous penalties for violating exogamy than there are
for violating endogamy. You will, therefore, readily see that with exogamy
as the rule there could be no Caste, for exogamy means fusion. But we have
castes ; consequently in the final analysis creation of Castes, so far as India
is concerned, means the superposition of endogamy on exogamy. However,
in an originally exogamous population an easy working out of endogamy
(which is equivalent to the creation of Caste) is a grave problem, and it is
in the consideration of the means utilized for the preservation of endogamy
against exogamy that we may hope to find the solution of our problem.

Thus the superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste.
But this is not an easy affair. Let us take an imaginary group that desires
to make itself into a Caste and analyse what means it will have to adopt to

10

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

make itself endogamous. If a group desires to make itself endogamous a
formal injunction against intermarriage with outside groups will be of no
avail, especially if prior to the introduction of endogamy, exogamy had been
the rule in all matrimonial relations. Again, there is a tendency in all groups
lying in close contact with one another to assimilate and amalgamate, and
thus consolidate into a homogeneous society. If this tendency is to be strongly
counteracted in the interest of Caste formation, it is absolutely necessary
to circumscribe a circle outside which people should not contract marriages.

Nevertheless, this encircling to prevent marriages from without creates
problems from within which are not very easy of solution. Roughly speaking,
in a normal group the two sexes are more or less evenly distributed, and
generally speaking there is an equality between those of the same age.
The equality is, however, never quite realized in actual societies. At the
same time to the group that is desirous of making itself into a caste the
maintenance of equality between the sexes becomes the ultimate goal, for
without it. endogamy can no longer subsist. In other words, if endogamy
is to be preserved conjugal rights from within have to be provided for,
otherwise members of the group will be driven out of the circle to take care
of themselves in any way they can. But in order that the conjugal rights be
provided for from within, it is absolutely necessary to maintain a numerical
equality between the marriageable units of the two sexes within the group
desirous of making itself into a Caste. It is only through the maintenance
of such an equality that the necessary endogamy of the group can be kept
intact, and a very large disparity is sure to break it.

The problem of Caste, then, ultimately resolves itself into one of repairing
the disparity between the marriageable units of the two sexes within it. Left
to nature, the much needed parity between the units can be realized only
when a couple dies simultaneously. But this is a rare contingency. The
husband may die before the wife and create a surplus woman, who must be
disposed of, else through intermarriage she will violate the endogamy of the
group. In like manner the husband may survive his wife and be surplus man,
whom the group, while it may sympathise with him for the sad bereavement,
has to dispose of, else he will marry outside the Caste and will break the
endogamy. Thus both the surplus man and the surplus woman constitute a
menace to the Caste if not taken care of, for not finding suitable partners
inside their prescribed circle (and left to themselves they cannot find any,
for if the matter be not regulated there can only be just enough pairs to
go round) very likely they will transgress the boundary, marry outside and
import offspring that is foreign to the Caste.

Let us see what our imaginary group is likely to do with this surplus man
and surplus woman. We will first take up the case of the surplus woman.

CASTES IN INDIA

11

She can be disposed of in two different ways so as to preserve the endogamy
of the Caste.

First: burn her on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband and get
rid of her. This, however, is rather an impracticable way of solving the
problem of sex disparity. In some cases it may work, in others it may not.
Consequently every surplus woman cannot thus be disposed of, because it
is an easy solution but a hard realization. And so the surplus woman (=
widow), if not disposed of, remains in the group : but in her very existence
lies a double danger. She may marry outside the Caste and violate endogamy,
or she may marry within the Caste and through competition encroach upon
the chances of marriage that must be reserved for the potential brides in
the Caste. She is therefore a menance in any case, and something must
be done to her if she cannot be burned along with her deceased husband.

The second remedy is to enforce widowhood on her for the rest of her life.
So far as the objective results are concerned, burning is a better solution
than enforcing widowhood. Burning the widow eliminates all the three evils
that a surplus woman is fraught with. Being dead and gone she creates no
problem of remarriage either inside or outside the Caste. But compulsory
widowhood is superior to burning because it is more practicable. Besides
being comparatively humane it also guards against the evils of remarriage
as does burning; but it fails to guard the morals of the group. No doubt
under compulsory widowhood the woman remains, and just because she is
deprived of her natural right of being a legitimate wife in future, the incentive
to immoral conduct is increased. But this is by no means an insuperable
difficulty. She can be degraded to a condition in which she is no longer a
source of allurement.

The problem of surplus man (= widower) is much more important and
much more difficult than that of the surplus woman in a group that desires
to make itself into a Caste. From time immemorial man as compared with
woman has had the upper hand. He is a dominant figure in every group
and of the two sexes has greater prestige. With this traditional superiority
of man over woman his wishes have always been consulted. Woman, on the
other hand, has been an easy prey to all kinds of iniquitous injunctions,
religious, social or economic. But man as a maker of injunctions is most
often above them all. Such being the case, you cannot accord the same kind
of treatment to a surplus man as you can to a surplus woman in a Caste.

The project of burning him with his deceased wife is hazardous in two
ways : first of all it cannot be done, simply because he is a man. Secondly,
if done, a sturdy soul is lost to the Caste. There remain then only two
solutions which can conveniently dispose of him. I say conveniently, because
he is an asset to the group.

12

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Important as he is to the group, endogamy is still more important, and
the solution must assure both these ends. Under these circumstances he
may be forced or I should say induced, after the manner of the widow, to
remain a widower for the rest of his life. This solution is not altogether
difficult, for without any compulsion some are so disposed as to enjoy self-
imposed celibacy, or even to take a further step of their own accord and
renounce the world and its joys. But, given human nature as it is, this
solution can hardly be expected to be realized. On the other hand, as is
very likely to be the case, if the surplus man remains in the group as an
active participator in group activities, he is a danger to the morals of the
group. Looked at from a different point of view celibacy, though easy in
cases where it succeeds, is not so advantageous even then to the material
prospects of the Caste. If he observes genuine celibacy and renounces the
world, he would not be a menace to the preservation of Caste endogamy or
Caste morals as he undoubtedly would be if he remained a secular person.
But as an ascetic celibate he is as good as burned, so far as the material
well-being of his Caste is concerned. A Caste, in order that it may be large
enough to afford a vigorous communal life, must be maintained at a certain
numerical strength. But to hope for this and to proclaim celibacy is the same
as trying to cure atrophy by bleeding.

Imposing celibacy on the surplus man in the group, therefore, fails both
theoretically and practically. It is in the interest of the Caste to keep him
as a Grahastha (one who raises a family), to use a Sanskrit technical term.
But the problem is to provide him with a wife from within the Caste. At
the outset this is not possible, for the ruling ratio in a caste has to be one
man to one woman and none can have two chances of marriage, for in a
Caste thoroughly self-enclosed there are always just enough marriageable
women to go round for the marriageable men. Under these circumstances
the surplus man can be provided with a wife only by recruiting a bride
from the ranks of those not yet marriageable in order to tie him down to
the group. This is certainly the best of the possible solutions in the case
of the surplus man. By this, he is kept within the Caste. By this means
numerical depletion through constant outflow is guarded against, and by
this endogamy morals are preserved.

It will now be seen that the four means by which numerical disparity
between the two sexes is conveniently maintained are : (1) burning the widow
with her deceased husband ; (2) compulsory widowhood — a milder form of
burning ; (3) imposing celibacy on the widower and (4) wedding him to a girl
not yet marriageable. Though, as I said above, burning the widow and imposing
celibacy on the widower are of doubtful service to the group in its endeavour
to preserve its endogamy, all of them operate as means. But means, as forces,
when liberated or set in motion create an end. What then is the end that
these means create ? They create and perpetuate endogamy, while caste and

CASTES IN INDIA

13

endogamy, according to our analysis of the various definitions of caste, are
one and the same thing. Thus the existence of these means is identical with
caste and caste involves these means.

This, in my opinion, is the general mechanism of a caste in a system of
castes. Let us now turn from these high generalities to the castes in Hindu
Society and inquire into their mechanism. I need hardly premise that there
are a great many pitfalls in the path of those who try to unfold the past,
and caste in India to be sure is a very ancient institution. This is especially
true where there exist no authentic or written records or where the people,
like the Hindus, are so constituted that to them writing history is a folly,
for the world is an illusion. But institutions do live, though for a long time
they may remain unrecorded and as often as not customs and morals are
like fossils that tell their own history. If this is true, our task will be amply
rewarded if we scrutinize the solution the Hindus arrived at to meet the
problems of the surplus man and surplus woman.

Complex though it be in its general working the Hindu Society, even to
a superficial observer, presents three singular uxorial customs, namely :

(i) Sati or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased
husband.

(ii) Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry.

(iii) Girl marriage.

In addition, one also notes a great hankering after Sannyasa (renunciation)
on the part of the widower, but this may in some cases be due purely to
psychic disposition.

So far as I know, no scientific explanation of the origin of these customs
is forthcoming even today. We have plenty of philosophy to tell us why these
customs were honoured, but nothing to tell us the causes of their origin and
existence. Sati has been honoured (C f. A. K. Coomaraswamy, Sati: A Defence
of the Eastern Woman in the British Sociological Review, Vol. VI, 1913)
because it is a “proof of the perfect unity of body and soul” between husband
and wife and of “devotion beyond the grave”, because it embodied the ideal
of wifehood, which is well expressed by Uma when she said, “Devotion to her
Lord is woman’s honour, it is her eternal heaven : and O Maheshvara”, she
adds with a most touching human cry, “I desire not paradise itself if thou
are not satisfied with me !” Why compulsory widowhood is honoured I know
not, nor have I yet met with any one who sang in praise of it, though there
are a great many who adhere to it. The eulogy in honour of girl marriage is
reported by Dr. Ketkar to be as follows : “A really faithful man or woman
ought not to feel affection for a woman or a man other than the one with
whom he or she is united. Such purity is compulsory not only after marriage,
but even before marriage, for that is the only correct ideal of chastity. No
maiden could be considered pure if she feels love for a man other than the one

14

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

to whom she might be married. As she does not know to whom she is going
to be married, she must not feel affection for any man at all before marriage.
If she does so, it is a sin. So it is better for a girl to know whom she has
to love before any sexual consciousness has been awakened in her.” 2 Hence
girl marriage.

This high-flown and ingenious sophistry indicates why these institutions
were honoured, but does not tell us why they were practised. My own
interpretation is that they were honoured because they were practised.
Any one slightly acquainted with rise of individualism in the 18th century
will appreciate my remark. At all times, it is the movement that is most
important; and the philosophies grow around it long afterwards to justify it
and give it a moral support. In like manner I urge that the very fact that
these customs were so highly eulogized proves that they needed eulogy for
their prevalence. Regarding the question as to why they arose, I submit
that they were needed to create the structure of caste and the philosophies
in honour of them were intended to popularize them, or to gild the pill,
as we might say, for they must have been so abominable and shocking to
the moral sense of the unsophisticated that they needed a great deal of
sweetening. These customs are essentially of the nature of means, though they
are represented as ideals. But this should not blind us from understanding
the results that flow from them. One might safely say that idealization of
means is necessary and in this particular case was perhaps motivated to
endow them with greater efficacy. Calling a means an end does no harm,
except that it disguises its real character ; but it does not deprive it of its
real nature, that of a means. You may pass a law that all cats are dogs,
just as you can call a means an end. But you can no more change the
nature of means thereby than you can turn cats into dogs; consequently I
am justified in holding that, whether regarded as ends or as means, Sati,
enforced widowhood and girl marriage are customs that were primarily
intended to solve the problem of the surplus man and surplus woman in a
caste and to maintain its endogamy. Strict endogamy could not be preserved
without these customs, while caste without endogamy is a fake.

Having explained the mechanism of the creation and preservation of
Caste in India, the further question as to its genesis naturally arises. The
question or origin is always an annoying question and in the study of Caste
it is sadly neglected ; some have connived at it, while others have dodged it.
Some are puzzled as to whether there could be such a thing as the origin
of caste and suggest that “if we cannot control our fondness for the word
‘origin’, we should better use the plural form, viz. ‘origins of caste’ ”. As for
myself I do not feel puzzled by the Origin of Caste in India for, as I have
established before, endogamy is the only characteristic of Caste and when
I say Origin of Caste I mean The Origin of the Mechanism for Endogamy.

2. History of Caste in India , 1909, pp. 2-33.

CASTES IN INDIA

15

The atomistic conception of individuals in a Society so greatly popularised —
I was about to say vulgarized — in political orations is the greatest humbug.
To say that individuals make up society is trivial; society is always composed
of classes. It may be an exaggeration to assert the theory of class-conflict,
but the existence of definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may
differ. They may be economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in
a society is always a member of a class. This is a universal fact and early
Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule, and, as a matter
of fact, we know it was not. If we bear this generalization in mind, our study
of the genesis of caste would be very much facilitated, for we have only to
determine what was the class that first made itself into a caste, for class
and caste, so to say, are next door neighbours, and it is only a span that
separates the two. A Caste is an Enclosed Class.

The study of the origin of caste must furnish us with an answer to the
question — what is the class that raised this “enclosure” around itself? The
question may seem too inquisitorial, but it is pertinent, and an answer to
this will serve us to elucidate the mystery of the growth and development
of castes all over India. Unfortunately a direct answer to this question is
not within my power. I can answer it only indirectly. I said just above that
the customs in question were current in the Hindu society. To be true to
facts it is necessary to qualify the statement, as it connotes universality of
their prevalence. These customs in all their strictness are obtainable only in
one caste, namely the Brahmins, who occupy the highest place in the social
hierarchy of the Hindu society ; and as their prevalence in non-Brahmin castes
is derivative of their observance is neither strict nor complete. This important
fact can serve as a basis of an important observation. If the prevalence of
these customs in the non-Brahmin Castes is derivative, as can be shown
very easily, then it needs no argument to prove what class is the father of
the institution of caste. Why the Brahmin class should have enclosed itself
into a caste is a different question, which may be left as an employment
for another occasion. But the strict observance of these customs and the
social superiority arrogated by the priestly class in all ancient civilizations
are sufficient to prove that they were the originators of this “unnatural
institution” founded and maintained through these unnatural means.

I now come to the third part of my paper regarding the question of the
growth and spread of the caste system all over India. The question I have
to answer is : How did the institution of caste spread among the rest of the
non-Brahmin population of the country ? The question of the spread of the
castes all over India has suffered a worse fate than the question of genesis.
And the main cause, as it seems to me, is that the two questions of spread
and of origin are not separated. This is because of the common belief among
scholars that the caste system has either been imposed upon the docile

16

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

population of India by a law-giver as a divine dispensation, or that it has
grown according to some law of social growth peculiar to the Indian people.

I first propose to handle the law-giver of India. Every country has its
law-giver, who arises as an incarnation (avatar) in times of emergency to set
right a sinning humanity and give it the laws of justice and morality. Manu,
the law-giver of India, if he did exist, was certainly an audacious person. If
the story that he gave the law of caste be credited, then Manu must have
been a dare-devil fellow and the humanity that accepted his dispensation
must be a humanity quite different from the one we are acquainted with. It
is unimaginable that the law of caste was given. It is hardly an exaggeration
to say that Manu could not have outlived his law, for what is that class that
can submit to be degraded to the status of brutes by the pen of a man, and
suffer him to raise another class to the pinnacle ? Unless he was a tyrant
who held all the population in subjection it cannot be imagined that he
could have been allowed to dispense his patronage in this grossly unjust
manner, as may be easily seen by a mere glance at his “Institutes”. I may
seem hard on Manu. but I am sure my force is not strong enough to kill
his ghost. He lives, like a disembodied spirit and is appealed to, and I am
afraid will yet live long. One thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu
did not give the law of Caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed
long before Manu. He was an upholder of it and therefore philosophised
about it, but certainly he did not and could not ordain the present order of
Hindu Society. His work ended with the codification of existing caste rules
and the preaching of Caste Dharma. The spread and growth of the Caste
system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power or cunning of an
individual or of a class. Similar in argument is the theory that the Brahmins
created the Caste. After what I have said regarding Manu, I need hardly
say anything more, except to point out that it is incorrect in thought and
malicious in intent. The Brahmins may have been guilty of many things,
and I dare say they were, but the imposing of the caste system on the non-
Brahmin population was beyond their mettle. They may have helped the
process by their glib philosophy, but they certainly could not have pushed
their scheme beyond their own confines. To fashion society after one’s own
pattern ! How glorious ! How hard ! One can take pleasure and eulogize
its furtherance, but cannot further it very far. The vehemence of my attack
may seem to be unnecessary ; but I can assure you that it is not uncalled
for. There is a strong belief in the mind of orthodox Hindus that the Hindu
Society was somehow moulded into the framework of the Caste System and
that it is an organization consciously created by the Shastras. Not only does
this belief exist, but it is being justified on the ground that it cannot but
be good, because it is ordained by the Shastras and the Shastras cannot
be wrong. I have urged so much on the adverse side of this attitude, not
because the religious sanctity is grounded on scientific basis, nor to help
those reformers who are preaching against it. Preaching did not make

CASTES IN INDIA

17

the caste system neither will it unmake it. My aim is to show the falsity of
the attitude that has exalted religious sanction to the position of a scientific
explanation.

Thus the great man theory does not help us very far in solving the spread
of castes in India. Western scholars, probably not much given to hero-
worship, have attempted other explanations. The nuclei, round which have
“formed” the various castes in India, are, according to them : (1) occupation;
(2) survivals of tribal organizations etc. ; (3) the rise of new belief; (4) cross-
breeding and (5) migration.

The question may be asked whether these nuclei do not exist in other
societies and whether they are peculiar to India. If they are not peculiar to
India, but are common to the world, why is it that they did not “form” caste
on other parts of this planet ? Is it because those parts are holier than the
land of the Vedas, or that the professors are mistaken ? I am afraid that
the latter is the truth.

In spite of the high theoretic value claimed by the several authors for
their respective theories based on one or other of the above nuclei, one
regrets to say that on close examination they are nothing more than filling
illustrations — what Matthew Arnold means by “the grand name without
the grand thing in it”. Such are the various theories of caste advanced by
Sir Denzil Ibbetson, Mr. Nesfield, Mr. Senart and Sir H. Risley. To criticise
them in a lump would be to say that they are a disguised form of the Petitio
Principii of formal logic. To illustrate : Mr. Nesfield says that “function and
function only. .. was the foundation upon which the whole system of Castes
in India was built up”. But he may rightly be reminded that he does not very
much advance our thought by making the above statement, which practically
amounts to saying that castes in India are functional or occupational, which
is a very poor discovery ! We have yet to know from Mr. Nesfield why is it
that an occupational group turned into an occupational caste ? I would very
cheerfully have undertaken the task of dwelling on the theories of other
ethnologists, had it not been for the fact that Mr. Nesfield’s is a typical one.

Without stopping to criticize those theories that explain the caste system
as a natural phenomenon occurring in obedience to the law of disintegration,
as explained by Herbert Spencer in his formula of evolution, or as natural
as “the structural differentiation within an organism” — to employ the
phraseology of orthodox apologists — , or as an early attempt to test the laws
of eugenics — as all belonging to the same class of fallacy which regards the
caste system as inevitable, or as being consciously imposed in anticipation
of these laws on a helpless and humble population, I will now lay before
you my own view on the subject.

We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu society, in
common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known

18

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

are the (1) Brahmins or the priestly class ; (2) the Kshatriya, or the
military class ; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class and (4) the Shudra,
or the artisan and menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the
fact that this was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when
qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their
personnel. At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class
socially detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through
a closed-door policy became a caste by itself. The other classes being
subject to the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation,
some into large, others into very minute groups. The Vaishya and Shudra
classes were the original inchoate plasm, which formed the sources of
the numerous castes of today. As the military occupation does not very
easily lend itself to very minute sub-division, the Kshatriya class could
have differentiated into soldiers and administrators.

This sub-division of a society is quite natural. But the unnatural thing
about these sub-divisions is that they have lost the open-door character
of the class system and have become self-enclosed units called castes.
The question is : were they compelled to close their doors and become
endogamous, or did they close them of their own accord ? I submit that
there is a double line of answer : Some closed the door : Others found it
closed against them. The one is a psychological interpretation and the
other is mechanistic, but they are complementary and both are necessary
to explain the phenomena of caste-formation in its entirety.

I will first take up the psychological interpretation. The question we
have to answer in this connection is : Why did these sub-divisions or
classes, if you please, industrial, religious or otherwise, become self-
enclosed or endogamous ? My answer is because the Brahmins were so.
Endogamy or the closed-door system, was a fashion in the Hindu society,
and as it had originated from the Brahmin caste it was whole-heartedly
imitated by all the non-Brahmin sub-divisions or classes, who, in their
turn, became endogamous castes. It is “the infection of imitation” that
caught all these sub-divisions on their onward march of differentiation
and has turned them into castes. The propensity to imitate is a deep-
seated one in the human mind and need not be deemed an inadequate
explanation for the formation of the various castes in India. It is so
deep-seated that Walter Bagehot argues that, “We must not think of
. . . imitation as voluntary, or even conscious. On the contrary it has
its seat mainly in very obscure parts of the mind, whose notions, so far
from being consciously produced, are hardly felt to exist; so far from
being conceived beforehand, are not even felt at the time. The main
seat of the imitative part of our nature is our belief, and the causes
predisposing us to believe this or disinclining us to believe that are
among the obscurest parts of our nature. But as to the imitative nature

CASTES IN INDIA

19

of credulity there can be no doubt.” 3 This propensity to imitate has been made
the subject of a scientific study by Gabriel Tarde, who lays down three laws
of imitation. One of his three laws is that imitation flows from the higher to
the lower or, to quote his own words, “Given the opportunity, a nobility will
always and everywhere imitate its leaders, its kings or sovereigns, and the
people likewise, given the opportunity, its nobility.” 4 5 Another of Tarde’s laws
of imitation is : that the extent or intensity of imitation varies inversely in
proportion to distance, or in his own words “The thing that is most imitated
is the most superior one of those that are nearest. In fact, the influence
of the model’s example is efficacious inversely to its distance as well as
directly to its superiority. Distance is understood here in its sociological
meaning. However distant in space a stranger may be, he is close by, from
this point of view, if we have numerous and daily relations with him and
if we have every facility to satisfy our desire to imitate him. This law of
the imitation of the nearest, of the least distant, explains the gradual and
consecutive character of the spread of an example that has been set by the
higher social ranks.” 6

In order to prove my thesis — which really needs no proof — that some castes
were formed by imitation, the best way, it seems to me, is to find out whether
or not the vital conditions for the formation of castes by imitation exist in
the Hindu Society. The conditions for imitation, according to this standard
authority are : (1) that the source of imitation must enjoy prestige in the group
and (2) that there must be “numerous and daily relations” among members
of a group. That these conditions were present in India there is little reason
to doubt. The Brahmin is a semi-god and very nearly a demi-god. He sets
up a mode and moulds the rest. His prestige is unquestionable and is the
fountain-head of bliss and good. Can such a being, idolised by scriptures and
venerated by the priest-ridden multitude, fail to project his personality on
the suppliant humanity ? Why, if the story be true, he is believed to be the
very end of creation. Such a creature is worthy of more than mere imitation,
but at least of imitation ; and if he lives in an endogamous enclosure, should
not the rest follow his example ? Frail humanity! Be it embodied in a grave
philosopher or a frivolous housemaid, it succumbs. It cannot be otherwise.
Imitation is easy and invention is difficult.

Yet another way of demonstrating the play of imitation in the formation
of castes is to understand the attitude of non-Brahmin classes towards those
customs which supported the structure of caste in its nascent days until, in
the course of history, it became embedded in the Hindu mind and hangs there
to this day without any support — for now it needs no prop but belief — like

3. Physics and Politics, 1915, p. 60.

4. Laws of Imitation, Tr. by E.C. Parsons, 2nd edition, p. 217.

5. Ibid., p. 224.

20

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a weed on the surface of a pond. In a way, but only in a way, the status of a
caste in the Hindu Society varies directly with the extent of the observance of
the customs of Sati, enforced widowhood, and girl marriage. But observance
of these customs varies directly with the distance (I am using the word in
the Tardian sense) that separates the caste. Those castes that are nearest
to the Brahmins have imitated all the three customs and insist on the strict
observance thereof. Those that are less near have imitated enforced widowhood
and girl marriage ; others, a little further off, have only girl marriage and
those furthest off have imitated only the belief in the caste principle. This
imperfect imitation, I dare say, is due partly to what Tarde calls “distance”
and partly to the barbarous character of these customs. This phenomenon
is a complete illustration of Tarde’s law and leaves no doubt that the whole
process of caste-formation in India is a process of imitation of the higher by
the lower. At this juncture I will turn back to support a former conclusion
of mine, which might have appeared to you as too sudden or unsupported.
I said that the Brahmin class first raised the structure of caste by the
help of those three customs in question. My reason for that conclusion was
that their existence in other classes was derivative. After what I have said
regarding the role of imitation in the spread of these customs among the
non-Brahmin castes, as means or as ideals, though the imitators have not
been aware of it, they exist among them as derivatives ; and, if they are
derived, there must have been prevalent one original caste that was high
enough to have served as a pattern for the rest. But in a theocratic society,
who could be the pattern but the servant of God ?

This completes the story of those that were weak enough to close their
doors. Let us now see how others were closed in as a result of being closed out.
This I call the mechanistic process of the formation of caste. It is mechanistic
because it is inevitable. That this line of approach, as well as the psychological
one, to the explanation of the subject has escaped my predecessors is entirely
due to the fact that they have conceived caste as a unit by itself and not as
one within a System of Caste. The result of this oversight or lack of sight has
been very detrimental to the proper understanding of the subject matter and
therefore its correct explanation. I will proceed to offer my own explanation
by making one remark which I will urge you to bear constantly in mind. It
is this : that caste in the singular number is an unreality. Castes exist only
in the plural number. There is no such thing as a caste : There are always
castes. To illustrate my meaning : while making themselves into a caste, the
Brahmins, by virtue of this, created non-Brahmin caste; or, to express it in my
own way, while closing themselves in they closed others out. I will clear my
point by taking another illustration. Take India as a whole with its various
communities designated by the various creeds to which they owe allegiance,
to wit, the Hindus, Mohammedans, Jews, Christians and Parsis. Now,
barring the Hindus, the rest within themselves are non-caste communities.

CASTES IN INDIA

21

But with respect to each other they are castes. Again, if the first four enclose
themselves, the Parsis are directly closed out, but are indirectly closed in.
Symbolically, if Group A wants to be endogamous, Group B has to be so by
sheer force of circumstances.

Now apply the same logic to the Hindu society and you have another
explanation of the “fissiparous” character of caste, as a consequence of the
virtue of self-duplication that is inherent in it. Any innovation that seriously
antagonises the ethical, religious and social code of the Caste is not likely
to be tolerated by the Caste, and the recalcitrant members of a Caste are in
danger of being thrown out of the Caste, and left to their own fate without
having the alternative of being admitted into or absorbed by other Castes.
Caste rules are inexorable and they do not wait to make nice distinctions
between kinds of offence. Innovation may be of any kind, but all kinds
will suffer the same penalty. A novel way of thinking will create a new
Caste for the old ones will not tolerate it. The noxious thinker respectfully
called Guru (Prophet) suffers the same fate as the sinners in illegitimate
love. The former creates a caste of the nature of a religious sect and the
latter a type of mixed caste. Castes have no mercy for a sinner who has
the courage to violate the code. The penalty is excommunication and the
result is a new caste. It is not peculiar Hindu psychology that induces
the excommunicated to form themselves into a caste ; far from it. On the
contrary, very often they have been quite willing to be humble members of
some caste (higher by preference) if they could be admitted within its fold.
But castes are enclosed units and it is their conspiracy with clear conscience
that compels the excommunicated to make themselves into a caste. The logic
of this obdurate circumstance is merciless, and it is in obedience to its force
that some unfortunate groups find themselves enclosed, because others in
enclosing, themselves have closed them out, with the result that new groups
(formed on any basis obnoxious to the caste rules) by a mechanical law are
constantly being converted into castes to a bewildering multiplicity. Thus is
told the second tale in the process of Caste formation in India.

Now to summarise the main points of my thesis. In my opinion there
have been several mistakes committed by the students of Caste, which have
misled them in their investigations. European students of Caste have unduly
emphasised the role of colour in the Caste system. Themselves impregnated
by colour prejudices, they very readily imagined it to be the chief factor in the
Caste problem. But nothing can be farther from the truth, and Dr. Ketkar
is correct when he insists that “All the princes whether they belonged to the
so-called Aryan race, or the so-called Dravidian race, were Aryas. Whether
a tribe or a family was racially Aryan or Dravidian was a question which
never troubled the people of India, until foreign scholars came in and began
to draw the line. The colour of the skin had long ceased to be a matter of

22

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

importance.” 6 Again, they have mistaken mere descriptions for explanation
and fought over them as though they were theories of origin. There are
occupational, religious etc., castes, it is true, but it is by no means an
explanation of the origin of Caste. We have yet to find out why occupational
groups are castes ; but this question has never even been raised. Lastly
they have taken Caste very lightly as though a breath had made it. On the
contrary, Caste, as I have explained it, is almost impossible to be sustained :
for the difficulties that it involves are tremendous. It is true that Caste
rests on belief, but before belief comes to be the foundation of an institution,
the institution itself needs to be perpetuated and fortified. My study of the
Caste problem involves four main points : (1) that in spite of the composite
make-up of the Hindu population, there is a deep cultural unity; (2) that
caste is a parcelling into bits of a larger cultural unit; (3) that there was
one caste to start with and (4) that classes have become Castes through
imitation and excommunication.

Peculiar interest attaches to the problem of Caste in India today; as
persistent attempts are being made to do away with this unnatural institution.
Such attempts at reform, however, have aroused a great deal of controversy
regarding its origin, as to whether it is due to the conscious command of
a Supreme Authority, or is an unconscious growth in the life of a human
society under peculiar circumstances. Those who hold the latter view will,
I hope, find some food for thought in the standpoint adopted in this paper.
Apart from its practical importance the subject of Caste is an all absorbing
problem and the interest aroused in me regarding its theoretic foundations
has moved me to put before you some of the conclusions, which seem to me
well founded, and the grounds upon which they may be supported. I am not,
however, so presumptuous as to think them in any way final, or anything
more than a contribution to a discussion of the subject. It seems to me that
the car has been shunted on wrong lines, and the primary object of the
paper is to indicate what I regard to be the right path of investigation, with
a view to arrive at a serviceable truth. We must, however, guard against
approaching the subject with a bias. Sentiment must be outlawed from the
domain of science and things should be judged from an objective standpoint.
For myself I shall find as much pleasure in a positive destruction of my own
idealogy, as in a rational disagreement on a topic, which, notwithstanding
many learned disquisitions is likely to remain controversial forever. To
conclude, while I am ambitious to advance a Theory of Caste, if it can be
shown to be untenable I shall be equally willing to give it up.

• •

6. History of Caste, p. 82.

2

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE
WITH

A Reply to Mahatma Gandhi

“Know Truth as Truth and Untruth as Untruth”

— Buddha

“He that WILL NOT reason is a bigot
He that CANNOT reason is a fool
He that DARE NOT reason is a slave”

— H. Drummond

Printed from the third edition of 1944

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The speech prepared by me for the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore has
had an astonishingly warm reception from the Hindu public for whom it
was primarily intended. The English edition of one thousand five hundred
was exhausted within two months of its publication. It is translated into
Gujarati and Tamil. It is being translated in Marathi, Hindi, Punjabi and
Malayalam. The demand for the English text still continues unabated. To
satisfy this demand it has become necessary to issue a Second Edition.
Considerations of history and effectiveness of appeal have led me to retain
the original form of the essay — namely the speech form — although I was
asked to recast it in the form of a direct narrative. To this edition I have
added two appendices. I have collected in Appendix I the two articles
written by Mr. Gandhi by way of review of my speech in the Harijan,
and his letter to Mr. Sant Ram, a member of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal.
In Appendix II, I have printed my views in reply to the articles of Mr.
Gandhi collected in Appendix I. Besides Mr. Gandhi many others have
adversely criticised my views as expressed in my speech. But I have felt
that in taking notice of such adverse comments I should limit myself to
Mr. Gandhi. This I have done not because what he has said is so weighty
as to deserve a reply but because to many a Hindu he is an oracle, so
great that when he opens his lips it is expected that the argument must
close and no dog must bark. But the world owes much to rebels who
would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not
infallible. I do not care for the credit which every progressive society

26

PREFACE

must give to its rebels. I shall be satisfied if I make the Hindus realize
that they are the sick men of India and that their sickness is causing
danger to the health and happiness of other Indians.

B. R. AMBEDKAR

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

The Second edition of this Essay appeared in 1937, and was exhausted
within a very short period. A new edition has been in demand for a
long time. It was my intention to recast the essay so as to incorporate
into it another essay of mine called “Castes in India, their Origin and
their Mechanism ”, which appeared in the issue of the Indian Antiquary
Journal for May 1917. But as I could not find time, and as there is very
little prospect of my being able to do so and as the demand for it from
the public is very insistent, I am content to let this be a mere reprint
of the Second edition.

I am glad to find that this essay has become so popular, and I hope
that it will serve the purpose for which it was intended.

22, Prithwiraj Road

New Delhi

1st December 1944

B. R. AMBEDKAR

PROLOGUE

On December 12, 1935, I received the following letter from
Mr. Sant Ram, the Secretary of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal :

My dear Doctor Saheb,

Many thanks for your kind letter of the 5th December. I have released
it for press without your permission for which I beg your pardon, as I
saw no harm in giving it publicity. You are a great thinker, and it is my
well-considered opinion that none else has studied the problem of Caste so
deeply as you have. I have always benefited myself and our Mandal from
your ideas. I have explained and preached it in the Kranti many times and
I have even lectured on it in many Conferences. I am now very anxious to
read the exposition of your new formula — “It is not possible to break Caste
without annihilating the religious notions on which it, the Caste system,
is founded.” Please do explain it at length at your earliest convenience, so
that we may take up the idea and emphasise it from press and platform.
At present, it is not fully clear to me.

* * * * *

Our Executive Committee persists in having you as our President for
our Annual Conference. We can change our dates to accommodate your
convenience. Independent Harijans of Punjab are very much desirous to meet
you and discuss with you their plans. So if you kindly accept our request and
come to Lahore to preside over the Conference it will serve double purpose.
We will invite Harijan leaders of all shades of opinion and you will get an
opportunity of giving your ideas to them.

The Mandal has deputed our Assistant Secretary, Mr. Indra Singh, to
meet you at Bombay in Xmas and discuss with you the whole situation with
a view to persuade you to please accept our request.

* * * * *

The Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, I was given to understand, to be an
organization of Caste Hindu Social Reformers, with the one and
only aim, namely to eradicate the Caste System from amongst the
Hindus. As a rule, I do not like to take any part in a movement
which is carried on by the Caste Hindus. Their attitude towards
social reform is so different from mine that I have found it
difficult to pull on with them. Indeed, I find their company quite

28

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

uncongenial to me on account of our differences of opinion. Therefore
when the Mandal first approached me I declined their invitation to
preside. The Mandal, however, would not take a refusal from me and
sent down one of its members to Bombay to press me to accept the
invitation. In the end I agreed to preside. The Annual Conference
was to be held at Lahore, the headquarters of the Mandal. The
Conference was to meet in Easter but was subsequently postponed
to the middle of May 1936. The Reception Committee of the Mandal
has now cancelled the Conference. The notice of cancellation came
long after my Presidential address had been printed. The copies of
this address are now lying with me. As I did not get an opportunity
to deliver the address from the presidential chair the public has not
had an opportunity to know my views on the problems created by
the Caste System. To let the public know them and also to dispose of
the printed copies which are lying on my hand, I have decided to put
the printed copies of the address in the market. The accompanying
pages contain the text of that address.

The public will be curious to know what led to the cancellation
of my appointment as the President of the Conference. At the start,
a dispute arose over the printing of the address. I desired that the
address should be printed in Bombay. The Mandal wished that it
should be printed in Lahore on the ground of economy. I did not agree
and insisted upon having it printed in Bombay. Instead of agreeing
to my proposition I received a letter signed by several members of
the Mandal from which I give the following extract :

27-3-36

Revered Dr. Ji,

Your letter of the 24th instant addressed to Sjt. Sant Ram has been
shown to us. We were a little disappointed to read it. Perhaps you are not
fully aware of the situation that has arisen here. Almost all the Hindus in
the Punjab are against your being invited to this province. The Jat-Pat-
Todak Mandal has been subjected to the bitterest criticism and has received
censorious rebuke from all quarters. All the Hindu leaders among whom
being Bhai Parmanand, ML. A. (Ex-President, Hindu Maha Sabha), Mahatma
Hans Raj, Dr. Gokal Chand Narang, Minister for Local Self-Government,
Raja Narendra Nath, M.L.C. etc., have dissociated themselves from this
step of the Mandal.

Despite all this the runners of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal (the leading figure
being Sjt. Sant Ram) are determined to wade through thick and thin but

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

29

would not give up the idea of your presidentship. The Mandal has earned a
bad name.

k k k k k

Under the circumstances it becomes your duty to co-operate with the Mandal.
On the one hand, they are being put to so much trouble and hardship by the
Hindus and if on the other hand you too augment their difficulties it will be a
most sad coincidence of bad luck for them.

We hope you will think over the matter and do what is good for us all.

k k k k k

This letter puzzled me greatly. I could not understand why the Mandal
should displease me for the sake of a few rupees in the matter of printing
the address. Secondly, I could not believe that men like Sir Gokal Chand
Narang had really resigned as a protest against my selection as President
because I had received the following letter from Sir Gokal Chand himself :

5 Montgomery Road
Lahore, 7-2-36

Dear Doctor Ambedkar,

I am glad to learn from the workers of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal that you
have agreed to preside at their next anniversary to be held at Lahore during
the Easter holidays. It will give me much pleasure if you stay with me while
you are at Lahore. More when we meet.

Yours sincerely,
G. C. Narang

Whatever be the truth I did not yield to this pressure. But even when
the Mandal found that I was insisting upon having my address printed
in Bombay instead of agreeing to my proposal the Mandal sent me a
wire that they were sending Mr. Har Bhagwan to Bombay to “talk over
matters personally” Mr. Har Bhagwan came to Bombay on the 9th of
April. When I met Mr. Har Bhagwan I found that he had nothing to say
regarding the issue. Indeed, he was so unconcerned regarding the printing
of the address, whether it should be printed in Bombay or in Lahore,
that he did not even mention it in the course of our conversation. All
that he was anxious for was to know the contents of the address. I was
then convinced that in getting the address printed in Lahore the main
object of the Mandal was not to save money but to get at the contents
of the address. I gave him a copy. He did not feel very happy with some
parts of it. He returned to Lahore. From Lahore, he wrote to me the
following letter :

Lahore, dated April 14, 1936

My dear Doctor Sahib,

Since my arrival from Bombay, on the 12th, I have been indisposed owing
to my having not slept continuously for 5 or 6 nights, which were spent in the

30

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

train. Reaching here I came to know that you had come to Amritsar. I
would have seen you there if I were well enough to go about. I have made
over your address to Mr. Sant Ram for translation and he has liked it very
much, but he is not sure whether it could be translated by him for printing
before the 25th. In any case, it woud have a wide publicity and we are sure
it would wake the Hindus up from their slumber.

The passage I pointed out to you at Bombay has been read by some of
our friends with a little misgiving, and those of us who would like to see
the Conference terminate without any untoward incident would prefer that
at least the word “Veda” be left out for the time being. I leave this to your
good sense. I hope, however, in your concluding paragraphs you will make
it clear that the views expressed in the address are your own and that the
responsibility does not lie on the Mandal. I hope, you will not mind this
statement of mine and would let us have 1,000 copies of the address, for
which we shall, of course, pay. To this effect I have sent you a telegram
today. A cheque of Rs. 100 is enclosed herewith which kindly acknowledge,
and send us your bills in due time.

I have called a meeting of the Reception Committee and shall communicate
their decision to you immediately. In the meantime kindly accept my heartfelt
thanks for the kindness shown to me and the great pains taken by you in
the preparation of your address. You have really put us under a heavy debt
of gratitude.

Yours sincerely,
Har Bhagwan

P.S . — Kindly send the copies of the address by passenger train as soon
as it is printed, so that copies may be sent to the Press for publication.

Accordingly I handed over my manuscript to the printer with an
order to print 1,000 copies. Eight days later, I received another letter
from Mr. Har Bhagwan which I reproduce below :

Lahore, 22-4-36

Dear Dr. Ambedkar,

We are in receipt of your telegram and letter, for which kindly accept
our thanks. In accordance with your desire, we have again postponed our
Conference, but feel that it would have been much better to have it on the
25th and 26th, as the weather is growing warmer and warmer every day
in the Punjab. In the middle of May it would be fairly hot, and the sittings
in the day time would not be very pleasant and comfortable. However, we
shall try our best to do all we can to make things as comfortable as possible,
if it is held in the middle of May.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

31

There is, however, one thing that we have been compelled to bring to
your kind attention. You will remember that when I pointed out to you the
misgivings entertained by some of our people regarding your declaration on
the subject of change of religion, you told me that it was undoubtedly outside
the scope of the Mandal and that you had no intention to say anything from
our platform in that connection. At the same time when the manuscript of
your address was handed to me you assured me that that was the main
portion of your address and that there were only two or three concluding
paragraphs that you wanted to add. On receipt of the second instalment
of your address we have been taken by surprise, as that would make it so
lengthy, that we are afraid, very few people would read the whole of it.
Besides that you have more than once stated in your address that you had
decided to walk out of the fold of the Hindus and that that was your last
address as a Hindu. You have also unnecessarily attacked the morality and
reasonableness of the Vedas and other religious books of the Hindus, and
have at length dwelt upon the technical side of Hindu religion, which has
absolutely no connection with the problem at issue, so much so that some
of the passages have become irrelevant and off the point. We would have
been very pleased if you had confined your address to that portion given
to me, or if an addition was necessary, it would have been limited to what
you had written on Brahminism etc. The last portion which deals with
the complete annihilation of Hindu religion and doubts the morality of the
sacred books of the Hindus as well as a hint about your intention to leave
the Hindu fold does not seem to me to be relevant.

I would therefore most humbly request you on behalf of the people
responsible for the Conference to leave out the passages referred to above,
and close the address with what was given to me or add a few paragraphs
on Brahminism. We doubt the wisdom of making the address unnecessarily
provocative and pinching. There are several of us who subscribe to your
feelings and would very much want to be under your banner for remodelling
of the Hindu religion. If you had decided to get together persons of your cult
I can assure you a large number would have joined your army of reformers
from the Punjab.

In fact, we thought you would give us a lead in the destruction of the evil
of caste system, especially when you have studied the subject so thoroughly,
and strengthen our hands by bringing about a revolution and making yourself
as a nucleus in the gigantic effort, but declaration of the nature made by
you when repeated loses its power, and becomes a hackneyed term. Under
the circumstances, I would request you to consider the whole matter and
make your address more effective by saying that you would be glad to take a
leading part in the destruction of the caste system if the Hindus are willing
to work in right earnest toward that end, even if they had to forsake their
kith and kin and the religious notions. In case you do so, I am sanguine
that you would find a ready response from the Punjab in such an endeavour.

32

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I shall be grateful if you will help us at this juncture as we have already
undergone much expenditure and have been put to suspence, and let us know
by the return of post that you have condescended to limit your address as
above. In case, you still insist upon the printing of the address in toto, we
very much regret it would not be possible — rather advisable for us to hold
the Conference, and would prefer to postpone it sine die, although by doing
so we shall be losing the goodwill of the people because of the repeated
postponements. We should, however, like to point out that you have carved
a niche in our hearts by writing such a wonderful treatise on the caste
system, which excels all other treatises so far written and will prove to be a
valuable heritage, so to say. We shall be ever indebted to you for the pains
taken by you in its preparation.

Thanking you very much for your kindness and with best wishes.

I am, yours sincerely,
Har Bhagwan

To this letter I sent the following reply :

27th April 1936

Dear Mr. Har Bhagwan,

I am in receipt of your letter of the 22nd April. I note with regret that the
Reception Committee of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal “would prefer to postpone
the Conference sine die” if I insisted upon printing the address in toto. In
reply I have to inform you that I also would prefer to have the Conference
cancelled — I do not like to use vague terms — if the Mandal insisted upon
having my address pruned to suit its circumstances. You may not like
my decision. But I cannot give up, for the sake of the honour of presiding
over the Conference, the liberty which every President must have in the
preparation of the address. I cannot give up for the sake of pleasing the
Mandal the duty which every President owes to the Conference over which
he presides to give it a lead which he thinks right and proper. The issue is
one of principle and I feel I must do nothing to compromise it in any way.

I would not have entered into any controversy as regards the propriety
of the decision taken by the Reception Committee. But as you have given
certain reasons which appear to throw the blame on me. I am bound to
answer them. In the first place, I must dispel the notion that the views
contained in that part of the address to which objection has been taken by
the Committee have come to the Mandal as a surprise. Mr. Sant Ram, I am
sure, will bear me out when I say that in reply to one of his letters I had
said that the real method of breaking up the Caste System was not to bring
about inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages but to destroy the religious
notions on which Caste was founded and that Mr. Sant Ram in return asked
me to explain what he said was a novel point of view. It was in response to

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

33

this invitation from Mr. Sant Ram that I thought I ought to elaborate
in my address what I had stated in a sentence in my letter to him. You
cannot, therefore, say that the views expressed are new. At any rate, they
are not new to Mr. Sant Ram who is the moving spirit and the leading
light of your Mandal. But I go further and say that I wrote this part of my
address not merely because I felt it desirable to do so. I wrote it because
I thought that it was absolutely necessary to complete the argument. I am
amazed to read that you characterize the portion of the speech to which
your Committee objects as “irrelevant and off the point”. You will allow me
to say that I am a lawyer and I know the rules of relevancy as well as any
member of your Committee. I most emphatically maintain that the portion
objected to is not only most relevant but is also important. It is in that part
of the address that I have discussed the ways and means of breaking up
the Caste System. It may be that the conclusion I have arrived at as to the
best method of destroying Caste is startling and painful. You are entitled
to say that my analysis is wrong. But you cannot say that in an address
which deals with the problem of Caste it is not open to me to discuss how
Caste can be destroyed.

Your other complaint relates to the length of the address. I have pleaded
guilty to the charge in the address itself. But, who is really responsible for
this ? I fear you have come rather late on the scene. Otherwise you would
have known that originally I had planned to write a short address for my
own convenience as I had neither the time nor the energy to engage myself
in the preparation of an elaborate thesis. It was the Mandal who asked me
to deal with the subject exhaustively and it was the Mandal which sent
down to me a list of questions relating to the Caste System and asked me
to answer them in the body of my address as they were questions which
were often raised in the controversy between the Mandal and its opponents
and which the Mandal found difficult to answer satisfactorily. It was in
trying to meet the wishes of the Mandal in this respect that the address has
grown to the length to which it has. In view of what I have said I am sure
you will agree that the fault respecting length of the address is not mine.

I did not expect that your Mandal would be so upset because I have
spoken of the destruction of Hindu Religion. I thought it was only fools who
were afraid of words. But lest there should be any misapprehension in the
minds of the people I have taken great pains to explain what I mean by
religion and destruction of religion. I am sure that nobody on reading my
address could possibly misunderstand me. That your Mandal should have
taken a fright at mere words as “destruction of religion etc.” notwithstanding
the explanation that accompanies, them does not raise the Mandal in my
estimation. One cannot have any respect or regard for men who take the
position of the Reformer and then refuse even to see the logical consequences
of that position, let alone following them out in action.

You will agree that I have never accepted to be limited in any way in the
preparation of my address and the question as to what the address should or

34

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

should not contain was never even discussed between myself and the Mandal.
I had always taken for granted that I was free to express in the address such
views as I held on the subject. Indeed until, you came to Bombay on the 9th
April the Mandal did not know what sort of an address I was preparing.
It was when you came to Bombay that I voluntarily told you that I had
no desire to use your platform from which to advocate my views regarding
change of religion by the Depressed Classes. I think I have scrupulously kept
that promise in the preparation of the address. Beyond a passing reference
of an indirect character where I say that “I am sorry I will not be here. . .
etc.” I have said nothing about the subject in my address. When I see you
object even to such a passing and so indirect a reference, I feel bound to
ask ; did you think that in agreeing to preside over your Conference I would
be agreeing to suspend or to give up my views regarding change of faith by
the Depressed Classes ? If you did think so I must tell you that I am in no
way responsible for such a mistake on your part. If any of you had even
hinted to me that in exchange for the honour you were doing me by electing
as President, I was to abjure my faith in my programme of conversion, I
would have told you in quite plain terms that I cared more for my faith
than for any honour from you.

After your letter of the 14th, this letter of yours comes as a surprize to
me. I am sure that any one who reads them will feel the same. I cannot
account for this sudden volte face on the part of the Reception Committee.
There is no difference in substance between the rough draft which was before
the Committee when you wrote your letter of the 14th and the final draft
on which the decision of the Committee communicated to me in your letter
under reply was taken. You cannot point out a single new idea in the final
draft which is not contained in the earlier draft. The ideas are the same.
The only difference is that they have been worked out in greater detail in
the final draft. If there was anything to object to in the address you could
have said so on the 14th. But you did not. On the contrary you asked me
to print off 1,000 copies leaving me the liberty to accept or not the verbal
changes which you suggested. Accordingly I got 1,000 copies printed which
are now lying with me. Eight days later you write to say that you object to
the address and that if it is not amended the Conference will be cancelled.
You ought to have known that there was no hope of any alteration being
made in the address. I told you when you were in Bombay that I would
not alter a comma, that I would not allow any censorship over my address
and that you would have to accept the address as it came from me. I also
told you that the responsibility for the views expressed in the address was
entirely mine and if they were not liked by the Conference I would not mind
at all if the Conference passed a resolution condemning them. So anxious
was I to relieve your Mandal from having to assume responsibility for my
views and also with the object of not getting myself entangled by too intimate

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

35

an association with your Conference, I suggested to you that I desired to
have my address treated as a sort of an inaugural address and not as a
Presidential address and that the Mandal should find some one else to
preside over the Conference, and deal with the resolutions. Nobody could
have been better placed to take a decision on the 14th than your Committee.
The Committee failed to do that and in the meantime cost of printing has
been incurred which, I am sure, with a little more firmness on the part of
your Committee could have been saved.

I feel sure that the views expressed in my address have little to do with
the decision of your Committee. I have reasons to believe that my presence
at the Sikh Prachar Conference held at Amritsar has had a good deal to do
with the decision of the Committee. Nothing else can satisfactorily explain
the sudden volte face shown by the Committee between the 14th and the
22nd April. I must not however prolong this controversy and must request
you to announce immediately that the Session of the Conference which
was to meet under my Presidentship is cancelled. All the grace has by now
run out and I shall not consent to preside even if your Committee agreed
to accept my address as it is in toto. I thank you for your appreciation of
the pains I have taken in the preparation of the address. I certainly have
profited by the labour if no one else does. My only regret is that I was put
to such hard labour at a time when my health was not equal to the strain
it has caused.

Yours sincerely,
B. R. Ambedkab

This correspondence will disclose the reasons which have led to the
cancellation by the Mandal of my appointment as President and the
reader will be in a position to lay the blame where it ought properly
to belong. This is I believe the first time when the appointment of a
President is cancelled by the Reception Committee because it does
not approve of the views of the President. But whether that is so or
not, this is certainly the first time in my life to have been invited
to preside over a Conference of Caste Hindus. I am sorry that it has
ended in a tragedy. But what can any one expect from a relationship
so tragic as the relationship between the reforming sect of Caste
Hindus and the self-respecting sect of Untouchables where the former
have no desire to alienate their orthodox fellows and the latter have
no alternative but to insist upon reform being carried out ?

Rajgriha, Dadar, Bombay 14
15th May 1936

B. R. AMBEDKAR

SPEECH PREPARED

BY

Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR

FOR

The 1936 Annual Conference of
the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore

BUT

NOT DELIVERED

Owing to the cancellation of the Conference by
the Reception Committee on the ground that
the views expressed in the Speech would be
unbearable to the Conference

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

37

Friends,

I am really sorry for the members of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal who
have so very kindly invited me to preside over this Conference. I am
sure they will be asked many questions for having selected me as the
President. The Mandal will be asked to explain as to why it has imported
a man from Bombay to preside over a function which is held in Lahore.
I believe the Mandal could easily have found some one better qualified
than myself to preside on the occasion. I have criticised the Hindus. I
have questioned the authority of the Mahatma whom they revere. They
hate me. To them I am a snake in their garden. The Mandal will no
doubt be asked by the politically-minded Hindus to explain why it has
called me to fill this place of honour. It is an act of great daring. I shall
not be surprised if some political Hindus regard it as an insult. This
selection of mine cannot certainly please the ordinary religiously-minded
Hindus. The Mandal may be asked to explain why it has disobeyed the
Shastric injunction in selecting the President. Accoding to the Shastras
the Brahmin is appointed to be the Guru for the three Varnas, q u if'iiH
TJG is a direction of the Shastras. The Mandal therefore knows
from whom a Hindu should take his lessons and from whom he should
not. The Shastras do not permit a Hindu to accept any one as his Guru
merely because he is well-versed. This is made very clear by Ramdas, a
Brahmin saint from Maharashtra, who is alleged to have inspired Shivaji
to establish a Hindu Raj. In his Dasbodh, a socio-politico-religious treatise
in Marathi verse Ramdas asks, addressing the Hindus, can we accept an
Antyaja to be our Guru because he is a Pandit (i.e. learned) and gives
an answer in the negative. What replies to give to these questions is a
matter which I must leave to the Mandal. The Mandal knows best the
reasons which led it to travel to Bombay to select a president, to fix upon
a man so repugnant to the Hindus and to descend so low in the scale
as to select an Antyaja — an untouchable — to address an audience of the
Savarnas. As for myself you will allow me to say that I have accepted the
invitation much against my will and also against the will of many of my
fellow untouchables. I know that the Hindus are sick of me. I know that
I am not a persona grata with them. Knowing all this I have deliberately
kept myself away from them. I have no desire to inflict myself upon them.
I have been giving expression to my views from my own platform. This
has already caused a great deal of heartburning and irritation. I have
no desire to ascend the platform of the Hindus to do within their sight
what I have been doing within their hearing. If I am here it is because
of your choice and not because of my wish. Yours is a cause of social
reform. That cause has always made an appeal to me and it is because
of this that I felt I ought not to refuse an opportunity of helping the
cause especially when you think that I can help it. Whether what I am

38

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

going to say today will help you in any way to solve the problem you are
grappling with is for you to judge. All I hope to do is to place before you
my views on the problem.

II

The path of social reform like the path to heaven at any rate in India,
is strewn with many difficulties. Social reform in India has few friends and
many critics. The critics fall into two distinct classes. One class consists of
political reformers and the other of the socialists.

It was at one time recognized that without social efficiency no permanent
progress in the other fields of activity was possible, that owing to mischief
wrought by the evil customs, Hindu Society was not in a state of efficiency
and that ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these evils. It was due
to the recognition of this fact that the birth of the National Congress was
accompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference. While the Congress
was concerned with defining the weak points in the political organisation of
the country, the Social Conference was engaged in removing the weak points
in the social organisation of the Hindu Society. For some time the Congress
and the Conference worked as two wings of one common activity and they
held their annual sessions in the same pandal. But soon the two wings
developed into two parties, a Political Reform Party and a Social Reform
Party, between whom there raged a fierce controversy. The Political Reform
Party supported the National Congress and Social Reform Party supported
the Social Conference. The two bodies thus became two hostile camps. The
point at issue was whether social reform should precede political reform.
For a decade the forces were evenly balanced and the battle was fought
without victory to either side. It was however evident that the fortunes of
the Social Conference were ebbing fast. The gentlemen who presided over
the sessions of the Social Conference lamented that the majority of the
educated Hindus were for political advancement and indifferent to social
reform and that while the number of those who attended the Congress was
very large and the number who did not attend but who sympathized with
it even larger, the number of those who attended the Social Conference was
very much smaller. This indifference, this thinning of its ranks was soon
followed by active hostility from the politicians. Under the leadership of
the late Mr. Tilak, the courtesy with which the Congress allowed the Social
Conference the use of its pandal was withdrawn and the spirit of enmity
went to such a pitch that when the Social Conference desired to erect its
own pandal a threat to burn the pandal was held out by its opponents. Thus
in course of time the party in favour of political reform won and the Social
Conference vanished and was forgotten. The speech, delivered by Mr. W.C.
Bonnerji in 1892 at Allahabad as President of the eighth session of the
Congress, sounds like a funeral oration at the death of the Social Conference

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

39

and is so typical of the Congress attitude that I venture to quote from it
the following extract. Mr. Bonnerji said :

“I for one have no patience with those who say we shall not be fit for political
reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see any connection between
the two. . .Are we not fit (for political reform) because our widows remain
unmarried and our girls are given in marriage earlier than in other countries ?
because our wives and daughters do not drive about with us visiting our friends ?
because we do not send our daughters to Oxford and Cambridge ?” (Cheers)

I have stated the case for political reform as put by Mr. Bonnerji. There
were many who are happy that the victory went to the Congress. But those
who believe in the importance of social reform may ask, is the argument
such as that of Mr. Bonnerji final ? Does it prove that the victory went to
those who were in the right ? Does it prove conclusively that social reform
has no bearing on political reform ? It will help us to understand the matter
if I state the other side of the case. I will draw upon the treatment of the
untouchables for my facts.

Under the rule of the Peshwas in the Maratha country the untouchable
was not allowed to use the public streets if a Hindu was coming along lest
he should pollute the Hindu by his shadow. The untouchable was required
to have a black thread either on his wrist or in his neck as a sign or a mark
to prevent the Hindus from getting themselves polluted by his touch through
mistake. In Poona, the capital of the Peshwa, the untouchable was required
to carry, strung from his waist, a broom to sweep away from behind the
dust he treaded on lest a Hindu walking on the same should be polluted.
In Poona, the untouchable was required to carry an earthen pot, hung in
his neck wherever he went, for holding his spit lest his spit falling on earth
should pollute a Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it. Let
me take more recent facts. The tyranny practised by the Hindus upon the
Balais, an untouchable community in Central India, will serve my purpose.
You will find a report of this in the Times of India of 4th January 1928.
The correspondent of the Times of India reported that high caste Hindus,
viz. Kalotas, Rajputs and Brahmins including the Patels and Patwaris of
villages of Kanaria, Bicholi-Hafsi, Bicholi-Mardana and of about 15 other
villages in the Indore district (of the Indore State) informed the Balais of
their respective villages that if they wished to live among them they must
conform to the following rules :

(1) Balais must not wear gold-lace-bordered pugrees.

(2) They must not wear dhotis with coloured or fancy borders.

(3) They must convey intimation of the death of any Hindu to relatives
of the deceased — no matter how far away these relatives may be
living.

40

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(4) In all Hindu marriages, Balais must play music before the processions
and during the marriage.

(5) Balai women must not wear gold or silver ornaments; they must not
wear fancy gowns or jackets.

(6) Balai women must attend all cases of confinement of Hindu women.

(7) Balais must render services without demanding remuneration and
must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give.

(8) If the Balais do not agree to abide by these terms they must clear
out of the villages. The Balais refused to comply ; and the Hindu
element proceeded against them. Balais were not allowed to get water
from the village wells; they were not allowed to let go their cattle
to graze. Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned
by a Hindu, so that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields
owned by Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own field.
The Hindus also let their cattle graze down the fields of Balais. The
Balais submitted petitions to the Darbar against these persecutions ;
but as they could get no timely relief, and the oppression continued,
hundreds of Balais with their wives and children were obliged to
abandon their homes in which their ancestors lived for generations
and to migrate to adjoining States, viz. to villages in Dhar, Dewas,
Bagli, Bhopal, Gwalior and other States. What happened to them in
their new homes may for the present be left out of our consideration.
The incident at Kavitha in Gujarat happened only last year. The
Hindus of Kavitha ordered the untouchables not to insist upon
sending their children to the common village school maintained by
Government. What sufferings the untouchables of Kavitha had to
undergo for daring to exercise a civic right against the wishes of
the Hindus is too well known to need detailed description. Another
instance occurred in the village of Zanu in the Ahmedabad district
of Gujarat. In November 1935 some untouchable women of well-to-do
families started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon
the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to their dignity
and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence. A most
recent event is reported from the village Chakwara in Jaipur State.
It seems from the reports that have appeared in the newspapers that
an untouchable of Chakwara who had returned from a pilgrimage had
arranged to give a dinner to his fellow untouchables of the village
as an act of religious piety. The host desired to treat the guests to
a sumptuous meal and the items served included ghee (butter) also.
But while the assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking of
the food, the Hindus in their hundreds, armed with lathis, rushed to
the scene, despoiled the food and belaboured the untouchables who

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

41

left the food they were served with and ran away for their lives.
And why was this murderous assault committed on defenceless
untouchables ? The reason given is that the untouchable host was
impudent enough to serve ghee and his untouchable guests were
foolish enough to taste it. Ghee is undoubtedly a luxury for the rich.
But no one would think that consumption of ghee was a mark of
high social status. The Hindus of Chakwara thought otherwise and
in righteous indignation avenged themselves for the wrong done to
them by the untouchables, who insulted them by treating ghee as
an item of their food which they ought to have known could not be
theirs, consistently with the dignity of the Hindus. This means that
an untouchable must not use ghee even if he can afford to buy it,
since it is an act of arrogance towards the Hindus. This happened
on or about the 1st of April 1936 !

Having stated the facts, let me now state the case for social reform.
In doing this, I will follow Mr. Bonnerji, as nearly as I can and ask the
political-minded Hindus “Are you fit for political power even though you do
not allow a large class of your own countrymen like the untouchables to
use public school ? Are you fit for political power even though you do not
allow them the use of public wells ? Are you fit for political power even
though you do not allow them the use of public streets ? Are you fit for
political power even though you do not allow them to wear what apparel
or ornaments they like ? Are you fit for political power even though you
do not allow them to eat any food they like ?” I can ask a string of such
questions. But these will suffice. I wonder what would have been the reply
of Mr. Bonnerji. I am sure no sensible man will have the courage to give an
affirmative answer. Every Congressman who repeats the dogma of Mill that
one country is not fit to rule another country must admit that one class is
not fit to rule another class.

How is it then that the Social Reform Party lost the battle ? To understand
this correctly it is necessary, to take note of the kind of social reform
which the reformers were agitating for. In this connection it is necessary
to make a distinction between social reform in the sense of the reform of
the Hindu Family and social reform in the sense of the reorganization
and reconstruction of the Hindu Society. The former has relation to widow
remarriage, child marriage etc., while the latter relates to the abolition of
the Caste System. The Social Conference was a body which mainly concerned
itself with the reform of the high caste Hindu Family. It consisted mostly of
enlightened high caste Hindus who did not feel the necessity for agitating
for the abolition of caste or had not the courage to agitate for it. They felt
quite naturally a greater urge to remove such evils as enforced widowhood,
child marriages etc., evils which prevailed among them and which were

42

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

personally felt by them. They did not stand up for the reform of the Hindu
society. The battle that was fought centered round the question of the reform
of the family. It did not relate to the social reform in the sense of the break-
up of the caste system. It was never put in issue by the reformers. That is
the reason why the Social Reform Party lost.

I am aware that this argument cannot alter the fact that political reform
did in fact gain precedence over social reform. But the argument has this
much value if not more. It explains why social reformers lost the battle. It
also helps us to understand how limited was the victory which the Political
Reform Party obtained over the Social Reform Party and that the view
that social reform need not precede political reform is a view which may
stand only when by social reform is meant the reform of the family. That
political reform cannot with impunity take precedence over social reform in
the sense of reconstruction of society is a thesis which, I am sure, cannot be
controverted. That the makers of political constitutions must take account of
social forces is a fact which is recognized by no less a person than Ferdinand
Lassalle, the friend and co-worker of Karl Marx. In addressing a Prussian
audience in 1862 Lassalle said :

“The constitutional questions are in the first instance not questions of right
but questions of might. The actual constitution of a country has its existence
only in the actual condition of force which exists in the country : hence political
constitutions have value and permanence only when they accurately express those
conditions of forces which exist in practice within a society.”

But it is not necessary to go to Prussia. There is evidence at home. What
is the significance of the Communal Award with its allocation of political
power in defined proportions to diverse classes and communities ? In my
view, its significance lies in this that political constitution must take note of
social organisation. It shows that the politicians who denied that the social
problem in India had any bearing on the political problem were forced to
reckon with the social problem in devising the constitution. The Communal
Award is so to say the nemesis following upon the indifference and neglect
of social reform. It is a victory for the Social Reform Party which shows that
though defeated they were in the right in insisting upon the importance of
social reform. Many, I know, will not accept this finding. The view is current,
and it is pleasant to believe in it, that the Communal Award is unnatural
and that it is the result of an unholy alliance between the minorities
and the bureaucracy. I do not wish to rely on the Communal Award as a
piece of evidence to support my contention if it is said that it is not good
evidence. Let us turn to Ireland. What does the history of Irish Home Rule
show ? It is well-known that in the course of the negotiations between
the representatives of Ulster and Southern Ireland, Mr. Redmond, the
representative Ireland, in order to bring Ulster in a Home Rule Constitution

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

43

common to the whole of Ireland said to the representatives of Ulster :
“Ask any political safeguards you like and you shall have them” What was
the reply that Ulstermen gave ? Their reply was “Damn your safeguards,
we don’t want to be ruled by you on any terms.” People who blame the
minorities in India ought to consider what would have happened to the
political aspirations of the majority if the minorities had taken the attitude
which. Ulster took. Judged by the attitude of Ulster to Irish Home Rule, is
it nothing that the minorities agreed to be ruled by the majority which has
not shown much sense of statesmanship, provided some safeguards were
devised for them ? But this is only incidental. The main question is why did
Ulster take this attitude? The only answer I can give is that there was a
social problem between Ulster and Southern Ireland the problem between
Catholics and Protestants, essentially a problem of Caste. That Home Rule
in Ireland would be Rome Rule was the way in which the Ulstermen had
framed their answer. But that is only another way of stating that it was
the social problem of Caste between the Catholics and Protestants, which
prevented the solution of the political problem. This evidence again is sure
to be challenged. It will be urged that here too the hand of the Imperialist
was at work. But my resources are not exhausted. I will give evidence
from the History of Rome. Here no one can say that any evil genius was
at work. Any one who has studied the History of Rome will know that the
Republican Constitution of Rome bore marks having strong resemblance to
the Communal Award. When the kingship in Rome was abolished, the Kingly
power or the Imperium was divided between the Consuls and the Pontifex
Maximus. In the Consuls was vested the secular authority of the King,
while the latter took over the religious authority of King. This Republican
Constitution had provided that, of the two Consuls one was to be Patrician
and the other Plebian. The same constitution had also provided that, of the
Priests under the Pontifex Maximus, half were to be Plebians and the other
half Patricians. Why is it that the Republican Constitution of Rome had
these provisions which, as I said, resemble so strongly the provisions of the
Communal Award ? The only answer one can get is that the Constitution
of Republican Rome had to take account of the social division between the
Patricians and the Plebians, who formed two distinct castes. To sum up,
let political reformers turn to any direction they like, they will find that in
the making of a constitution, they cannot ignore the problem arising out of
the prevailing social order.

The illustrations which I have taken in support of the proposition that
social and religious problems have a bearing on political constitutions seem
to be too particular. Perhaps they are. But it should not be supposed that
the bearing of the one on the other is limited. On the other hand one can
say that generally speaking History bears out the proposition that political
revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions.

44

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The religious Reformation started by Luther was the precursor of the political
emancipation of the European people. In England Puritanism led to the
establishment of political liberty. Puritanism founded the new world. It was
Puritanism which won the war of American Independence and Puritanism
was a religious movement. The same is true of the Muslim Empire. Before
the Arabs became a political power they had undergone a thorough religious
revolution started by the Prophet Mohammad. Even Indian History supports
the same conclusion. The political revolution led by Chandragupta was
preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political
revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform
brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the
Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak.
It is unnecessary to add more illustrations. These will suffice to show that
the emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary preliminary for
the political expansion of the people.

Ill

Let me now turn to the Socialists. Can the Socialists ignore the problem
arising out of the social order ? The Socialists of India following their fellows
in Europe are seeking to apply the economic interpretation of history to
the facts of India. They propound that man is an economic creature, that
his activities and aspirations are bound by economic facts, that property is
the only source of power. They, therefore, preach that political and social
reforms are but gigantic illusions and that economic reform by equalization
of property must have precedence over every other kind of reform. One may
join issue on every one of these premises on which rests the Socialists’ case
for economic reform having priority over every other kind of reform. One
may contend that economic motive is not the only motive by which man
is actuated. That economic power is the only kind of power no student of
human society can accept. That the social status of an individual by itself
often becomes a source of power and authority is made clear by the sway
which the Mahatmas have held over the common man. Why do millionaires
in India obey penniless Sadhus and Fakirs ? Why do millions of paupers in
India sell their trifling trinckets which constitute their only wealth and go
to Benares and Mecca ? That, religion is the source of power is illustrated
by the history of India where the priest holds a sway over the common man
often greater than the magistrate and where everything, even such things
as strikes and elections, so easily take a religious turn and can so easily be
given a religious twist. Take the case of the Plebians of Rome as a further
illustration of the power of religion over man. It throws great light on this
point. The Plebs had fought for a share in the supreme executive under
the Roman Republic and had secured the appointment of a Plebian Consul
elected by a separate electorate constituted by the Commitia Centuriata,
which was an assembly of Plebians. They wanted a Consul of their own

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

45

because they felt that the Patrician Consuls used to discriminate against the
Plebians in carrying on the administration. They had apparently obtained a
great gain because under the Republican Constitution of Rome one Consul
had the power of vetoing an act of the other Consul. But did they in fact
gain anything ? The answer to this question must be in the negative. The
Plebians never could get a Plebian Consul who could be said to be a strong
man and who could act independently of the Patrician Consul. In the ordinary
course of things the Plebians should have got a strong Plebian Consul in view
of the fact that his election was to be by a separate electorate of Plebians.
The question is why did they fail in getting a strong Plebian to officiate
as their Consul ? The answer to this question reveals the dominion which
religion exercises over the minds of men. It was an accepted creed of the
whole Roman populus that no official could enter upon the duties of his office
unless the Oracle of Delphi declared that he was acceptable to the Goddess.
The priests who were in charge of the temple of the Goddess of Delphi were
all Patricians. Whenever therefore the Plebians elected a Consul who was
known to be a strong party man opposed to the Patricians or “communal” to
use the term that is current in India, the Oracle invariably declared that he
was not acceptable to the Goddess. This is how the Plebians were cheated
out of their rights. But what is worthy of note is that the Plebians permitted
themselves to be thus cheated because they too like the Patricians, held firmly
the belief that the approval of the Goddess was a condition precedent to the
taking charge by an official of his duties and that election by the people
was not enough. If the Plebians had contended that election was enough
and that the approval by the Goddess was not necessary they would have
derived the fullest benefit from the political right which they had obtained.
But they did not. They agreed to elect another, less suitable to themselves
but more suitable to the Goddess which in fact meant more amenable to
the Patricians. Rather than give up religion, the Plebians give up material
gain for which they had fought so hard. Does this not show that religion can
be a source of power as great as money if not greater ? The fallacy of the
Socialists lies in supposing that because in the present stage of European
Society property as a source of power is predominant, that the same is true
of India or that the same was true of Europe in the past. Religion, social
status and property are all sources of power and authority, which one man
has, to control the liberty of another. One is predominant at one stage, the
other is predominant at another stage. That is the only difference. If liberty
is the ideal, if liberty means the destruction of the dominion which one man
holds over another then obviously it cannot be insisted upon that economic
reform must be the one kind of reform worthy of pursuit. If the source of
power and dominion is at any given time or in any given society social and
religious then social reform and religious reform must be accepted as the
necessary sort of reform.

46

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

One can thus attack the doctrine of Economic Interpretation of History
adopted by the Socialists of India. But I recognize that economic interpretation
of history is not necessary for the validity of the Socialist contention that
equalization of property is the only real reform and that it must precede
everything else. However, what I like to ask the Socialists is this : Can you
have economic reform without first bringing about a reform of the social
order ? The Socialists of India do not seem to have considered this question.
I do not wish to do them an injustice. I give below a quotation from a letter
which a prominent Socialist wrote a few days ago to a friend of mine in
which he said, “I do not believe that we can build up a free society in India
so long as there is a trace of this ill-treatment and suppression of one class
by another. Believing as I do in a socialist ideal, inevitably I believe in
perfect equality in the treatment of various classes and groups. I think that
Socialism offers the only true remedy for this as well as other problems.”
Now the question that I like to ask is : Is it enough for a Socialist to say, “I
believe in perfect equality in the treatment of the various classes ?” To say
that such a belief is enough is to disclose a complete lack of understanding
of what is involved in Socialism. If Socialism is a practical programme and
is not merely an ideal, distant and far off, the question for a Socialist is not
whether he believes in equality. The question for him is whether he minds
one class ill-treating and suppressing another class as a matter of system, as
a matter of principle and thus allow tyranny and oppression to continue to
divide one class from another. Let me analyse the factors that are involved
in the realization of Socialism in order to explain fully my point. Now it is
obvious that the economic reform contemplated by the Socialists cannot come
about unless there is a revolution resulting in the seizure of power. That
seizure of power must be by a proletariat. The first question I ask is : Will
the proletariat of India combine to bring about this revolution ? What will
move men to such an action ? It seems to me that other things being equal
the only thing that will move one man to take such an action is the feeling
that other man with whom he is acting are actuated by feeling of equality
and fraternity and above all of justice. Men will not join in a revolution for
the equalization of property unless they know that after the revolution is
achieved they will be treated equally and that there will be no discrimination
of caste and creed. The assurance of a socialist leading the revolution that
he does not believe in caste, I am sure, will not suffice. The assurance
must be the assurance proceeding from much deeper foundation, namely,
the mental attitude of the compatriots towards one another in their spirit
of personal equality and fraternity. Can it be said that the proletariat of
India, poor as it is, recognise no distinctions except that of the rich and the
poor ? Can it be said that the poor in India recognize no such distinctions of
caste or creed, high or low ? If the fact is that they do, what unity of front
can be expected from such a proletariat in its action against the rich ? How

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

47

can there be a revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front?
Suppose for the sake of argument that by some freak of fortune a revolution
does take place and the Socialists come in power, will they not have to deal
with the problems created by the particular social order prevalent in India ?
I can’t see how a Socialist State in India can function for a second without
having to grapple with the problems created by the prejudices which make
Indian people observe the distinctions of high and low, clean and unclean.
If Socialists are not to be content with the mouthing of fine phrases, if the
Socialists wish to make Socialism a definite reality then they must recognize
that the problem of social reform is fundamental and that for them there
is no escape from it. That, the social order prevalent in India is a matter
which a Socialist must deal with, that unless he does so he cannot achieve
his revolution and that if he does achieve it as a result of good fortune he
will have to grapple with it if he wishes to realize his ideal, is a proposition
which in my opinion is incontrovertible. He will be compelled to take account
of caste after revolution if he does not take account of it before revolution.
This is only another way of saying that, turn in any direction you like, caste
is the monster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform, you
cannot have economic reform, unless you kill this monster.

IV

It is a pity that Caste even today has its defenders. The defences are
many. It is defended on the ground that the Caste System is but another
name for division of labour and if division of labour is a necessary feature
of every civilized society then it is argued that there is nothing wrong in
the Caste System. Now the first thing is to be urged against this view is
that Caste System is not merely division of labour. It is also a division
of labourers. Civilized society undoubtedly needs division of labour. But
in no civilized society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural
division of labourers into water-tight compartments. Caste System is
not merely a division of labourers which is quite different from division
of labour — it is an heirarchy in which the divisions of labourers are
graded one above the other. In no other country is the division of labour
accompanied by this gradation of labourers. There is also a third point of
criticism against this view of the Caste System. This division of labour is
not spontaneous, it is not based on natural aptitudes. Social and individual
efficiency requires us to develop the capacity of an individual to the point
of competency to choose and to make his own career. This principle is
violated in the Caste System in so far as it involves an attempt to appoint
tasks to individuals in advance, selected not on the basis of trained original
capacities, but on that of the social status of the parents. Looked at from
another point of view this stratification of occupations which is the result
of the Caste System is positively pernicious. Industry is never static. It
undergoes rapid and abrupt changes. With such changes an individual must

48

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

be free to change his occupation. Without such freedom to adjust himself to
changing circumstances it would be impossible for him to gain his livelihood.
Now the Caste System will not allow Hindus to take to occupations where
they are wanted if they do not belong to them by heredity. If a Hindu is
seen to starve rather than take to new occupations not assigned to his
Caste, the reason is to be found in the Caste System. By not permitting
readjustment of occupations, caste becomes a direct cause of much of the
unemployment we see in the country. As a form of division of labour the
Caste system suffers from another serious defect. The division of labour
brought about by the Caste System is not a division based on choice.
Individual sentiment, individual preference has no place in it. It is based on
the dogma of predestination. Considerations of social efficiency would compel
us to recognize that the greatest evil in the industrial system is not so much
poverty and the suffering that it involves as the fact that so many persons
have callings which make no appeal to those who are engaged in them. Such
callings constantly provoke one to aversion, ill-will and the desire to evade.
There are many occupations in India which on account of the fact that they
are regarded as degraded by the Hindus provoke those who are engaged in
them to aversion. There is a constant desire to evade and escape from such
occupations which arises solely because of the blighting effect which they
produce upon those who follow them owing to the slight and stigma cast
upon them by the Hindu religion. What efficiency can there be in a system
under which neither men’s hearts nor their minds are in their work ? As
an economic organization Caste is therefore a harmful institution, inasmuch
as, it involves the subordination of man’s natural powers and inclinations
to the exigencies of social rules

V

Some have dug a biological trench in defence of the Caste System. It is
said that the object of Caste was to preserve purity of race and purity of
blood. Now ethnologists are of opinion that men of pure race exist nowhere
and that there has been a mixture of all races in all parts of the world.
Especially is this the case with the people of India. Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar
in his paper on Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population has stated that
“There is hardly a class, or Caste in India which has not a foreign strain
in it. There is an admixture of alien blood not only among the warrior
classes — the Rajputs and the Marathas — but also among the Brahmins who
are under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign elements.”
The Caste system cannot be said to have grown as a means of preventing the
admixture of races or as a means of maintaining purity of blood. As a matter
of fact Caste system came into being long after the different races of India
had commingled in blood and culture. To hold that distinctions of Castes or
really distinctions of race and to treat different Castes as though they were
so many different races is a gross perversion of facts. What racial affinity

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

49

is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Brahmin of Madras ?
What racial affinity is there between the untouchable of Bengal and the
untouchable of Madras? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin
of the Punjab and the Chamar of the Punjab ? What racial difference is there
between the Brahmin of Madras and the Pariah of Madras ? The Brahmin
of the Punjab is racially of the same stock as the Chamar of the Punjab and
the Brahmin of Madras is of the same race as the Pariah of Madras. Caste
system does not demarcate racial division. Caste system is a social division of
people of the same race. Assuming it, however, to be a case of racial divisions
one may ask : What harm could there be if a mixture of races and of blood
was permitted to take place in India by intermarriages between different
Castes ? Men are no doubt divided from animals by so deep a distinction
that science recognizes men and animals as two distinct species. But even
scientists who believe in purity of races do not assert that the different races
constitute different species of men. They are only varieties of one and the
same species. As such they can interbreed and produce an offspring which
is capable of breeding and which is not sterile. An immense lot of nonsense
is talked about heredity and eugenics in defence of the Caste System. Few
would object to the Caste System if it was in accord with the basic principle
of eugenics because few can object to the improvement of the race by judicious
mating. But one fails to understand how the Caste System secures judicious
mating. Caste System is a negative thing. It merely prohibits persons
belonging to different Castes from intermarrying. It is not a positive method
of selecting which two among a given Caste should marry. If Caste is eugenic
in origin then the origin of sub-Castes must also be eugenic. But can any one
seriously maintain that the origin of sub-Castes is eugenic ? I think it would
be absurd to contend for such a proposition and for a very obvious reason.
If Caste means race then differences of sub-Castes cannot mean differences
of race because sub-Castes become ex hypothesia sub-divisions of one and
the same race. Consequently the bar against intermarrying and interdining
between sub-Castes cannot be for the purpose of maintaining purity of race
or of blood. If sub-Castes cannot be eugenic in origin there cannot be any
substance in the contention that Caste is eugenic in origin. Again if Caste
is eugenic in origin one can understand the bar against intermarriage. But
what is the purpose of the interdict placed on interdining between Castes
and sub-Castes alike ? Interdining cannot infect blood and therefore cannot
be the cause either of the improvement or of deterioration of the race. This
shows that Caste has no scientific origin and that those who are attempting
to give it an eugenic basis are trying to support by science what is grossly
unscientific. Even today eugenics cannot become a practical possibility unless
we have definite knowledge regarding the laws of heredity. Prof. Bateson in
his Mendel’s Principles of Heredity says, “There is nothing in the descent of
the higher mental qualities to suggest that they follow any single system of

50

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

transmission. It is likely that both they and the more marked developments
of physical powers result rather from the coincidence of numerous factors
than from the possession of any one genetic element.” To argue that the
Caste System was eugenic in its conception is to attribute to the forefathers
of present-day Hindus a knowledge of heredity which even the modern
scientists do not possess. A tree should be judged by the fruits it yields.
If caste is eugenic what sort of a race of men it should have produced ?
Physically speaking the Hindus are a C 3 people. They are a race of Pygmies
and dwarfs stunted in stature and wanting in stamina. It is a nation 9/10ths
of which is declared to be unfit for military service. This shows that the
Caste System does not embody the eugenics of modern scientists. It is a
social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse
section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in
fashion and who had authority to force it on their inferiors.

VI

Caste does not result in economic efficiency. Caste cannot and has not
improved the race. Caste has however done one thing. It has completely
disorganized and demoralized the Hindus.

The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is that Hindu Society
is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the
Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves.
It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion.
They did not feel the necessity of a common name because they had no
conception of their having constituted a community. Hindu society as such
does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is conscious of its
existence. Its survival is the be all and end all of its existence. Castes do not
even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other
castes except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions each
caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes.
Each caste not only dines among itself and marries among itself but each
caste prescribes its own distinctive dress. What other explanation can there
be of the innumerable styles of dress worn by the men and women of India
which so amuse the tourists ? Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living
in his own hole refusing to have any contact with others. There is an utter
lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call “consciousness of kind”.
There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. In every Hindu the consciousness
that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the
Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation. There are however many
Indians whose patriotism does not permit them to admit that Indians are
not a nation, that they are only an amorphous mass of people. They have
insisted that underlying the apparent diversity there is a fundamental unity
which marks the life of the Hindus in as much as there is a similarity of

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

51

habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts which obtain all over the continent
of India. Similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts there is.
But one cannot accept the conclusion that therefore, the Hindus constitute
a society. To do so is to misunderstand the essentials which go to make up
a society. Men do not become a society by living in physical proximity any
more than a man ceases to be a member of his society by living so many
miles away from other men. Secondly similarity in habits and customs,
beliefs and thoughts is not enough to constitute men into society. Things
may be passed physically from one to another like bricks. In the same way
habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts of one group may be taken over
by another group and there may thus appear a similarity between the two.
Culture spreads by diffusion and that is why one finds similarity between
various primitive tribes in the matter of their habits and customs, beliefs
and thoughts, although they do not live in proximity. But no one could say
that because there was this similarity the primitive tribes constituted one
society. This is because similarly in certain things is not enough to constitute
a society. Men constitute a society because they have things which they
possess in common. To have similar thing is totally different from possessing
things in common. And the only way by which men can come to possess
things in common with one another is by being in communication with one
another. This is merely another way of saying that Society continues to exist
by communication indeed in communication. To make it concrete, it is not
enough if men act in a way which agrees with the acts of others. Parallel
activity, even if similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society. This is
proved by the fact that the festivals observed by the different Castes amongst
the Hindus are the same. Yet these parallel performances of similar festivals
by the different castes have not bound them into one integral whole. For
that purpose what is necessary is for a man to share and participate in a
common activity so that the same emotions are aroused in him that animate
the others. Making the individual a sharer or partner in the associated
activity so that he feels its success as his success, its failure as his failure
is the real thing that binds men and makes a society of them. The Caste
System prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it
has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and
a consciousness of its own being.

VII

The Hindus often complain of the isolation and exclusiveness of a gang or
a clique and blame them for anti-social spirit. But they conveniently forget
that this anti-social spirit is the worst feature of their own Caste System.
One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much as
the Germans did in singing their hymn of hate against the English during
the last war. The literature of the Hindus is full of caste genealogies in which

52

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

an attempt is made to give a noble origin to one caste and an ignoble origin
to other castes. The Sahyadrikhand is a notorious instance of this class of
literature. This anti-social spirit is not confined to caste alone. It has gone
deeper and has poisoned the mutual relations of the sub-castes as well. In
my province the Golak Brahmins, Deorukha Brahmins, Karada Brahmins,
Palshe Brahmins and Chitpavan Brahmins, all claim to be sub-divisions of
the Brahmin Caste. But the anti-social spirit that prevails between them is
quite as marked and quite as virulent as the anti-social spirit that prevails
between them and other non-Brahmin castes. There is nothing strange in
this. An anti-social spirit is found wherever one group has “interests of its
own” which shut it out from full interaction with other groups, so that its
prevailing purpose is protection of what it has got. This anti-social spirit,
this spirit of protecting its own interests is as much a marked feature of the
different castes in their isolation from one another as it is of nations in their
isolation. The Brahmin’s primary concern is to protect “his interest” against
those of the non-Brahmins and the non-Brahmin’s primary concern is to
protect their interests against those of the Brahmins. The Hindus, therefore,
are not merely an assortment of castes but they are so many warring groups
each living for itself and for its selfish ideal. There is another feature of
caste which is deplorable. The ancestors of the present-day English fought
on one side or the other in the wars of the Roses and the Cromwellian War.
But the decendents of those who fought on the one side do not bear any
animosity — any grudge against the descendents of those who fought on the
other side. The feud is forgotten. But the present-day non-Brahmins cannot
forgive the present-day Brahmins for the insult their ancestors gave to Shivaji.
The present-day Kayasthas will not forgive the present-day Brahmins for
the infamy cast upon their forefathers by the forefathers of the latter. To
what is this difference due ? Obviously to the Caste System. The existence
of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the memory of past
feuds between castes green and has prevented solidarity.

VIII

The recent discussion about the excluded and partially included areas has
served to draw attention to the position of what are called the aboriginal
tribes in India. They number about 13 millions if not more. Apart from the
questions whether their exclusion from the new Constitution is proper or
improper, the fact still remains that these aborigines have remained in their
primitive uncivilized State in a land which boasts of a civilization thousands
of years old. Not only are they not civilized but some of them follow pursuits
which have led to their being classified as criminals. Thirteen millions of
people living in the midst of civilization are still in a savage state and are
leading the life of hereditary criminals ! ! But the Hindus have never felt
ashamed of it. This is a phenomenon which in my view is quite unparalleled.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

53

What is the cause of this shameful state of affairs ? Why has no attempt
been made to civilize these aborigines and to lead them to take to a more
honourable way of making a living ? The Hindus will probably seek to account
for this savage state of the aborigines by attributing to them congenital
stupidity. They will probably not admit that the aborigines have remained
savages because they had made no effort to civilize them, to give them
medical aid, to reform them, to make them good citizens. But supposing
a Hindu wished to do what the Christian missionary is doing for these
aborigines, could he have done it ? I submit not. Civilizing the aborigines
means adopting them as your own, living in their midst, and cultivating
fellow-feeling, in short loving them. How is it possible for a Hindu to do
this ? His whole life is one anxious effort to preserve his caste. Caste is
his precious possession which he must save at any cost. He cannot consent
to lose it by establishing contact with the aborigines the remnants of the
hateful Anaryas of the Vedic days. Not that a Hindu could not be taught
the sense of duty to fallen humanity, but the trouble is that no amount of
sense of duty can enable him to overcome his duty to preserve his caste.
Caste is, therefore, the real explanation as to why the Hindu has let the
savage remain a savage in the midst of his civilization without blushing
or without feeling any sense of remorse or repentance. The Hindu has not
realized that these aborigines are a source of potential danger. If these
savages remain savages they may not do any harm to the Hindus. But if
they are reclaimed by non-Hindus and converted to their faiths they will
swell the ranks of the enemies of the Hindus. If this happens the Hindu
will have to thank himself and his Caste System.

IX

Not only has the Hindu made no effort for the humanitarian cause of
civilizing the savages but the higher-caste Hindus have deliberately prevented
the lower castes who are within the pale of Hinduism from rising to the
cultural level of the higher castes. I will give two instances, one of the Sonars
and the other of the Pathare Prabhus. Both are communities quite well-known
in Maharashtra. Like the rest of the communities desiring to raise their
status these two communities were at one time endeavouring to adopt some
of the ways and habits of the Brahmins. The Sonars were styling themselves
Daivadnya Brahmins and were wearing their “dhotis” with folds on and using
the word namaskar for salutation. Both, the folded way of wearing the “dhoti”
and the namaskar were special to the Brahmins. The Brahmins did not like
this imitation and this attempt by Sonars to pass off as Brahmins. Under the
authority of the Peshwas the Brahmins successfully put down this attempt
on the part of the Sonars to adopt the ways of the Brahmins. They even
got the President of the Councils of the East India Company’s settlement in
Bombay to issue a prohibitory order against the Sonars residing in Bombay.
At one time the Pathare Prabhus had widow-remarriage as a custom of their

54

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

caste. This custom of widow-remarriage was later on looked upon as a mark
of social inferiority by some members of the caste especially because it was
contrary to the custom prevalent among the Brahmins. With the object of
raising the status of their community some Pathare Prabhus sought to stop
this practice of widow-remarriage that was prevalent in their caste. The
community was divided into two camps, one for and the other against the
innovation. The Peshwas took the side of those in favour of widow-remarriage
and thus virtually prohibited the Pathare Prabhus from following the ways
of the Brahmins. The Hindus criticise the Mohammedans for having spread
their religion by the use of the sword. They also ridicule Christianity on the
score of the inquisition. But really speaking who is better and more worthy
of our respect — the Mohammedans and Christians who attempted to thrust
down the throats of unwilling persons what they regarded as necessary for
their salvation or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who would
endeavour to keep others in darkness, who would not consent to share his
intellectual and social inheritance with those who are ready and willing to
make it a part of their own make-up ? I have no hesitation in saying that if
the Mohammedan has been cruel the Hindu has been mean and meanness
is worse than cruelty.

X

Whether the Hindu religion was or was not a missionary religion has been a
controversial issue. Some hold the view that it was never a missionary religion.
Others hold that it was. That the Hindu religion was once a missionary
religion must be admitted. It could not have spread over the face of India,
if it was not a missionary religion. That today it is not a missionary religion
is also a fact which must be accepted. The question therefore is not whether
or not the Hindu religion was a missionary religion. The real question is
why did the Hindu religion cease to be a missionary religion ? My answer
is this. Hindu religion ceased to be a missionary religion when the Caste
System grew up among the Hindus. Caste is inconsistent with conversion.
Inculcation of beliefs and dogmas is not the only problem that is involved in
conversion. To find a place for the convert in the social life of the community
is another and a much more important problem that arises in connection with
conversion. That problem is where to place the convert, in what caste ? It is
a problem which must baffle every Hindu wishing to make aliens converts
to his religion. Unlike the club the membership of a caste is not open to
all and sundry. The law of caste confines its membership to person bom in
the caste. Castes are autonomous and there is no authority anywhere to
compel a caste to admit a new-comer to its social life. Hindu Society being
a collection of castes and each caste being a close corporation there is no
place for a convert. Thus it is the caste which has prevented the Hindus from
expanding and from absorbing other religious communities. So long as caste

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

55

remain, Hindu religion cannot be made a missionary religion and Shudhi
will be both a folly and a futility.

XI

The reasons which have made Shudhi impossible for Hindus are also
responsible for making Sanghatan impossible. The idea underlying Sanghatan
is to remove from the mind of the Hindu that timidity and cowardice which
so painfully make him off from the Mohammedan and the Sikh and which
have led him to adopt the low ways of treachery and cunning for protecting
himself. The question naturally arises : From where does the Sikh or the
Mohammedan derive his strength which makes him brave and fearless ? I am
sure it is not due to relative superiority of physical strength, diet or drill. It
is due to the strength arising out of the feeling that all Sikhs will come to the
rescue of a Sikh when he is in danger and that all Mohammedans will rush
to save a Muslim if he is attacked. The Hindu can derive no such strength.
He cannot feel assured that his fellows will come to his help. Being one and
fated to be alone he remains powerless, develops timidity and cowardice and
in a fight surrenders or runs away. The Sikh as well as the Muslim stands
fearless and gives battle because he knows that though one he will not be
alone. The presence of this belief in the one helps him to hold out and the
absence of it in the other makes him to give way. If you pursue this matter
further and ask what is it that enables the Sikh and the Mohammedan to
feel so assured and why is the Hindu filled with such despair in the matter
of help and assistance you will find that the reasons for this difference lie in
the difference in their associated mode of living. The associated mode of life
practised by the Sikhs and the Mohammedans produces fellow-feeling. The
associated mode of life of the Hindus does not. Among Sikhs and Muslims
there is a social cement which makes them Bhais. Among Hindus there is
no such cement and one Hindu does not regard another Hindu as his Bhai.
This explains why a Sikh says and feels that one Sikh, or one Khalsa is
equal to Sava Lakh men. This explains why one Mohammedan is equal to
a crowd of Hindus. This difference is undoubtedly a difference due to caste.
So long as caste remains, there will be no Sanghatan and so long as there
is no Sanghatan the Hindu will remain weak and meek. The Hindus claim
to be a very tolerant people. In my opinion this is a mistake. On many
occasions they can be intolerant and if on some occasions they are tolerant
that is because they are too weak to oppose or too indifferent to oppose.
This indifference of the Hindus has become so much a part of their nature
that a Hindu will quite meekly tolerate an insult as well as a wrong. You
see amongst them, to use the words of Morris, “The great reading down the
little, the strong heating down the weak, cruel men fearing not, kind men
daring not and wise men caring not. ” With the Hindu Gods all forbearing,
it is not difficult to imagine the pitiable condition of the wronged and the

56

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

oppressed among the Hindus. Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease
that can infect a people. Why is the Hindu so indifferent ? In my opinion
this indifferentism is the result of Caste System which has made Sanghatan
and co-operation even for a good cause impossible.

XII

The assertion by the individual of his own opinions and beliefs, his own
independence and interest as over against group standards, group authority
and group interests is the beginning of all reform. But whether the reform
will continue depends upon what scope the group affords for such individual
assertion. If the group is tolerant and fair-minded in dealing with such
individuals they will continue to assert and in the end succeed in converting
their fellows. On the other hand if the group is intolerant and does not
bother about the means it adopts to stifle such individuals they will perish
and the reform will die out. New a caste has an unquestioned right to
excommunicate any man who is guilty of breaking the rules of the caste
and when it is realized that excommunication involves a complete cesser
of social intercourse it will be agreed that as a form of punishment there
is really little to choose between excommunication and death. No wonder
individual Hindus have not had the courage to assert their independence
by breaking the barriers of caste. It is true that man cannot get on with
his fellows. But it is also true that he cannot do without them. He would
like to have the society of his fellows on his terms. If he cannot get it on
his terms then he will be ready to have it on any terms even amounting to
complete surrender. This is because he cannot do without society. A caste is
ever ready to take advantage of the helplessness of a man and insist upon
complete conformity to its code in letter and in spirit. A caste can easily
organize itself into a conspiracy to make the life of a reformer a hell and if
a conspiracy is a crime I do not understand why such a nefarious act as an
attempt to excommunicate a person for daring to act contrary to the rules
of caste should not be made an offence punishable in law. But as it is, even
law gives each caste an autonomy to regulate its membership and punish
dissenters with excommunication. Caste in the hands of the orthodox has
been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reforms and for killing all reform.

XIII

The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste
has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity.
Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu’s public is his caste. His
responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste.
Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound. There
is no sympathy to the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious.
There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response.
There is charity but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

57

is sympathy but not for men of other caste. Would a Hindu acknowledge
and follow the leadership of a great and good man? The case of a Mahatma
apart, the answer must be that he will follow a leader if he is a man of his
caste. A Brahmin will follow a leader only if he is a Brahmin, a Kayastha
if he is a Kayastha and so on. The capacity to appreciate merits in a man
apart from his caste does not exist in a Hindu. There is appreciation of
virtue but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality
is as bad as tribal morality. My caste-man, right or wrong; my caste-man,
good or bad. It is not a case of standing by virtue and not standing by
vice. It is a case of standing or not standing by the caste. Have not Hindus
committed treason against their country in the interests of their caste ?

XIV

I would not be surprised if some of you have grown weary listening
to this tiresome tale of the sad effects which caste has produced. There
is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to the constructive side of the
problem. What is your ideal society if you do not want caste is a question
that is bound to be asked of you. If you ask me, my ideal would be a
society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And why not ? What
objection can there be to Fraternity ? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society
should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking
place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many
interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied
and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words
there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another
name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of Government.
It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated
experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards
fellowmen. Any objection to Liberty ? Few object to liberty in the sense of
a right to free movement, in the sense of a right to life and limb. There
is no objection to liberty in the sense of a right to property, tools and
materials as being necessary for earning a living to keep the body in
due state of health. Why not allow liberty to benefit by an effective and
competent use of a person’s powers ? The supporters of caste who would
allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb and property, would not
readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves liberty to
choose one’s profession. But to object to this kind of liberty is to perpetuate
slavery. For slavery does not merely mean a legalized form of subjection.
It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept from
other the purposes which control their conduct. This condition obtains even
where mere is no slavery in the legal sense. It is found where, as in the
Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on certain prescribed
callings which are not of their choice. Any objection to equality ? This
has obviously been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French

58

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Revolution. The objections to equality may be sound and one may have
to admit that all men are not equal. But what of that ? Equality may be
a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing principle. A
man’s power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social inheritance
or endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of
scientific knowledge, everything which enables him to be more efficient
than the savage, and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In all these three
respects men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is, shall we
treat them as unequal because they are unequal ? This is a question
which the opponents of equality must answer. From the standpoint of the
individualist it may be just to treat men unequally so far as their efforts
are unequal. It may be desirable to give as much incentive as possible to
the full development of every one’s powers. But what would happen if men
were treated unequally as they are, in the first two respects ? It is obvious
that those individuals also in whose favour there is birth, education, family
name, business connections and inherited wealth would be selected in the
race. But selection under such circumstances would not be a selection of
the able. It would be the selection of the privileged. The reason therefore,
which forces that in the third respect we should treat men unequally
demands that in the first two respects we should treat men as equally as
possible. On the other hand it can be urged that if it is good for the social
body to get the most out of its members, it can get most out of them only
by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of the race.
That is one reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is another
reason why we must accept equality. A Statesman is concerned with vast
numbers of people. He has neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine
distinctions and to treat each equitably i.e. according to need or according
to capacity. However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of
men may be, humanity is not capable of assortment and classification.
The statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule and that
rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike not because they are alike
but because classification and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of
equality is glaringly fallacious but taking all in all it is the only way a
statesman can proceed in politics which is a severely practical affair and
which demands a severely practical test.

XV

But there is a set of reformers who hold out a different ideal. They go by
the name of the Arya Samajists and their ideal of social organization is what
is called Chaturvarnya or the division of society into four classes instead of
the four thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more attractive
and to disarm opposition the protagonists of Chaturvarnya take great care to
point out that their Chaturvarnya is based not on birth but on guna (worth).
At the outset, I must confess that notwithstanding the worth-basis of this

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

59

Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to which I cannot reconcile myself. In the
first place, if under the Chaturvarnya of the Arya Samajists an individual
is to take his place in the Hindu Society according to his worth. I do not
understand why the Arya Samajists insist upon labelling men as Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. A learned man would be honoured without
his being labelled a Brahmin. A soldier would be respected without his
being designated a Kshatriya. If European society honours its soldiers and
its servants without giving them permanent labels, why should Hindu
Society find it difficult to do so is a question, which Arya Samajists have
not cared to consider. There is another objection to the continuance of these
labels. All reform consists in a change in the notions, sentiment and mental
attitudes of the people towards men and things. It is common experience
that certain names become associated with certain notions and sentiments,
which determine a person’s attitude towards men and things. The names,
Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra, are names which are associated
with a definite and fixed notion in the mind of every Hindu. That notion is
that of a hierarchy based on birth. So long as these names continue, Hindus
will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra as
hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and act accordingly.
The Hindu must be made to unlearn all this. But how can this happen if
the old labels remain and continue to recall to his mind old notions. If new
notions are to be inculcated in the minds of people it is necessary to give
them new names. To continue the old name is to make the reform futile. To
allow this Chaturvarnya, based on worth to be designated by such stinking
labels of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions
based on birth, is a snare.

XVI

To me this Chaturvarnya with its old labels is utterly repellent and my whole
being rebels against it. But I do not wish to rest my objection to Chaturvarnya
on mere grounds of sentiments. There are more solid grounds on which I rely
for my opposition to it. A close examination of this ideal has convinced me
that as a system of social organization, Chaturvarnya is impracticable, harmful
and has turned out to be a miserable failure. From a practical point of view,
the system of Chaturvarnya raises several difficulties which its protagonists
do not seem to have taken into account. The principle underlying caste is
fundamentally different from the principle underlying Varna. Not only are
they fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. The
former is based on worth. How are you going to compel people who have
acquired a higher status based on birth without reference to their worth
to vacate that status ? How are you going to compel people to recognize
the status due to a man in accordance with his worth, who is occupying a
lower status based on his birth ? For this you must first break up the Caste
System, in order to be able to establish the Varna system. How are you going

60

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

to reduce the four thousand castes, based on birth, to the four Varnas,
based on worth ? This is the first difficulty which the protagonists of the
Chaturvarnya must grapple with. There is a second difficulty which the
protagonists of Chaturvarnya must grapple with, if they wish to make the
establishment of Chaturvarnya a success.

Chaturvarnya pre-supposes that you can classify people into four definite
classes. Is this possible ? In this respect, the ideal of Chaturvarnya has,
as you will see, a close affinity to the Platonic ideal. To Plato, men fell by
nature into three classes. In some individuals, he believed mere appetites
dominated. He assigned them to the labouring and trading classes. Others
revealed to him that over and above appetites, they have a courageous
disposition. He classed them as defenders in war and guardians of internal
peace. Others showed a capacity to grasp the universal reason underlying
things. He made them the law-givers of the people. The criticism to which
Plato’s Republic is subject, is also the criticism which must apply to the
system of Chaturvarnya, in so far as it proceeds upon the possibility
of an accurate classification of men into four distinct classes. The chief
criticism against Plato is that his idea of lumping of individuals into a
few sharply marked-off classes is a very superficial view of man and his
powers. Plato had no perception of the uniqueness of every individual, of
his incommensurability with others, of each individual forming a class of
his own. He had no recognition of the infinite diversity of active tendencies
and combination of tendencies of which an individual is capable. To him,
there were types of faculties or powers in the individual constitution. All this
is demonstrably wrong. Modern science has shown that lumping together
of individuals into a few sharply marked-off classes is a superficial view
of man not worthy of serious consideration. Consequently, the utilization
of the qualities of individuals is incompitable with their startification by
classes, since the qualities of individuals are so variable. Chaturvarnya
must fail for the very reason for which Plato’s Republic must fail, namely
that it is not possible to pigeon men into holes, according as he belongs to
one class or the other. That it is impossible to accurately classify people
into four definite classes is proved by the fact that the original four classes
have now become four thousand castes.

There is a third difficulty in the way of the establishment of the system of
Chaturvarnya. How are you going to maintain the system of Chaturvarnya,
supposing it was established ? One important requirement for the successful
working of Chaturvarnya is the maintenance of the penal system which could
maintain it by its sanction. The system of Chaturvarnya must perpetually
face the problem of the transgressor. Unless there is a penalty attached to the
act of transgression, men will not keep to their respective classes. The whole
system will break down, being contrary to human nature. Chaturvarnya
cannot subsist by its own inherent goodness. It must be enforced by law.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

61

That, without penal sanction the ideal of Chaturvarnya cannot be realized,
is proved by the story in the Ramayana of Rama killing Shambuka. Some
people seem to blame Rama because he want only and without reason killed
Shambuka. But to blame Rama for killing Shambuka is to misunderstand
the whole situation. Ram Raj was a Raj based on Chaturvarnya. As a king,
Rama was bound to maintain Chaturvarnya. It was his duty therefore to kill
Shambuka, the Shudra, who had transgressed his class and wanted to be a
Brahmin. This is the reason why Rama killed Shambuka. But this also shows
that penal sanction is necessary for the maintenance of Chaturvarnya. Not
only penal sanction is necessary, but penalty of death is necessary. That is
why Rama did not inflict on Shambuka a lesser punishment. That is why
Manu-Smriti prescribes such heavy sentences as cutting off the tongue or
pouring of molten lead in the ears of the Shudra, who recites or hears the
Veda. The supporters of Chaturvarnya must give an assurance that they
could successfully classify men and they could induce modern society in the
twentieth century to reforge the penal sanctions of Manu-Smriti.

The protagonists of Chaturvarnya do not seem to have considered what
is to happen to women in their system. Are they also to be divided into
four classes, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra? Or are they to be
allowed to take the status of their husbands. If the status of the woman is
to be the consequence of marriage what becomes of the underlying principle
of Chaturvarnya, namely, that the status of a person should be based upon
the worth of that person ? If they are to be classified according to their
worth is their classification to be nominal or real ? If it is to be nominal
then it is useless and then the protagonists of Chaturvarnya must admit
that their system does not apply to women. If it is real, are the protagonists
of Chaturvarnya prepared to follow the logical consequences of applying
it to women ? They must be prepared to have women priests and women
soldiers. Hindu society has grown accustomed to women teachers and women
barristers. It may grow accustomed to women brewers and women butchers.
But he would be a bold person, who would say that it will allow women
priests and women soldiers. But that will be the logical outcome of applying
Chaturvarnya to women. Given these difficulties, I think no one except a
congenital idiot could hope and believe in a successful regeneration of the
Chaturvarnya.

XVII

Assuming that Chaturvarnya is practicable, I contend that it is the most
vicious system. That the Brahmins should cultivate knowledge, that the
Kshatriya should bear arms, that the Vaishya should trade and that the
Shudra should serve sounds as though it was a system of division of labour.
Whether the theory was intended to state that the Shudra need not or that
whether it was intended to lay down that he must not, is an interesting
question. The defenders of Chaturvarnya give it the first meaning. They say,

62

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

why should the Shudra need trouble to acquire wealth, when the three
Varnas are there to support him ? Why need the Shudra bother to take to
education, when there is the Brahmin to whom he can go when the occasion
for reading or writing arises ? Why need the Shudra worry to arm himself
because there is the Kshatriya to protect him ? The theory of Chaturvarnya,
understood in this sense, may be said to look upon the Shudra as the ward
and the three Varnas as his guardians. Thus interpreted, it is a simple,
elevating and alluring theory. Assuming this to be the correct view of the
underlying conception of Chaturvarnya, it seems to me that the system
is neither fool-proof nor knave-proof. What is to happen, if the Brahmins,
Vaishyas and Kshatriyas fail to pursue knowledge, to engage in economic
enterprise and to be efficient soldiers which are their respective functions ?
Contrary-wise, suppose that they discharge their functions but flout their
duty to the Shudra or to one another, what is to happen to the Shudra if
the three classes refuse to support him on fair terms or combine to keep him
down ? Who is to safeguard the interests of the Shudra or for the matter of
that of the Vaishya and Kshatriya when the person, who is trying to take
advantage of his ignorance is the Brahmin ? Who is to defend the liberty
of the Shudra and for the matter of that, of the Brahmin and the Vaishya
when the person who is robbing him of it is the Kshatriya ? Inter-dependence
of one class on another class is inevitable. Even dependence of one class
upon another may sometimes become allowable. But why make one person
depend upon another in the matter of his vital needs ? Education everyone
must have. Means of defence everyone must have. These are the paramount
requirements of every man for his self-preservation. How can the fact that
his neighbour is educated and armed help a man who is uneducated and
disarmed. The whole theory is absurd. These are the questions, which the
defenders of Chaturvarnya do not seem to be troubled about. But they are
very pertinent questions. Assuming their conception of Chaturvarnya that
the relationship between the different classes is that of ward and guardian
is the real conception underlying Chaturvarnya, it must be admitted that it
makes no provision to safeguard the interests of the ward from the misdeeds
of the guardian. Whether the relationship of guardian and ward was the
real underlying conception, on which Chaturvarnya was based, there is no
doubt that in practice the relation was that of master and servants. The
three classes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas although not very happy
in their mutual relationship managed to work by compromise. The Brahmin
flattered the Kshatriya and both let the Vaishya live in order to be able to
live upon him. But the three agreed to beat down the Shudra. He was not
allowed to acquire wealth lest he should be independent of the three Varnas.
He was prohibited from acquiring knowledge lest he should keep a steady
vigil regarding his interests. He was prohibited from bearing arms lest he
should have the means to rebel against their authority. That this is how
the Shudras were treated by the Tryavarnikas is evidenced by the Laws

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

63

of Manu. There is no code of laws more in famous regarding social rights
than the Laws of Manu. Any instance from anywhere of social injustice
must pale before it. Why have the mass of people tolerated the social evils
to which they have been subjected ? There have been social revolutions in
other countries of the world. Why have there not been social revolutions
in India, is a question which has incessantly troubled me. There is only
one answer, which I can give and it is that the lower classes of Hindus
have been completely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched
system of Chaturvarnya. They could not bear arms and without arms
they could not rebel. They were all ploughmen or rather condemned to be
ploughmen and they never were allowed to convert their ploughshare into
swords. They had no bayonets and therefore everyone who chose could and
did sit upon them. On account of the Chaturvarnya, they could receive no
education. They could not think out or know the way to their salvation.
They were condemned to be lowly and not knowing the way of escape
and not having the means of escape, they became reconciled to eternal
servitude, which they accepted as their inescapable fate. It is true that
even in Europe the strong has not shrunk from the exploitation, nay the
spoliation of the weak. But in Europe, the strong have never contrived to
make the weak helpless against exploitation so shamelessly as was the
case in India among the Hindus. Social war has been raging between the
strong and the weak far more violently in Europe than it has ever been in
India. Yet, the weak in Europe has had in his freedom of military service
his physical weapon, in suffering his political weapon and in education his
moral weapon. These three weapons for emancipation were never withheld
by the strong from the weak in Europe. All these weapons were, however,
denied to the masses in India by Chaturvarnya. There cannot be a more
degrading system of social organization than the Chaturvarnya. It is the
system which deadens, paralyses and cripples the people from helpful
activity. This is no exaggeration. History bears ample evidence. There is
only one period in Indian history which is a period of freedom, greatness
and glory. That is the period of the Mourya Empire. At all other times the
country suffered from defeat and darkness. But the Mourya period was a
period when Chaturvarnya was completely annihilated, when the Shudras,
who constituted the mass of the people, came into their own and became
the rulers of the country. The period of defeat and darkness is the period
when Chaturvarnya flourished to the damnation of the greater part of the
people of the country.

XVIII

Chaturvarnya is not new. It is as old as the Vedas. That is one of the
reasons why we are asked by the Arya Samajists to consider its claims.
Judging from the past as a system of social organization, it has been tried
and it has failed. How many times have the Brahmins annihilated the seed

64

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of the Kshatriyas ! How many times have the Kshatriyas annihilated the
Brahmins! The Mahabharata and the Puranas are full of incidents of the
strife between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. They even quarreled
over such petty questions as to who should salute first, as to who should
give way first, the Brahmins or the Kshatriyas, when the two met in
the street. Not only was the Brahmin an eyesore to the Kshatriya and
the Kshatriya an eyesore to the Brahmin, it seems that the Kshatriyas
had become tyrannical and the masses, disarmed as they were under the
system of Chaturvarnya, were praying Almighty God for relief from their
tyranny. The Bhagwat tells us very definitely that Krishna had taken
Avtar for one sacred purpose and that was to annihilate the Kshatriyas.
With these instances of rivalry and enmity between the different Varnas
before us, I do not understand how any one can hold out Chaturvarnya
as an ideal to be aimed at or as a pattern, on which the Hindu Society
should be remodelled,

XIX

I have dealt with those, who are without you and whose hostility to your
ideal is quite open. There appear to be others, who are neither without
you not with you. I was hesitating whether I should deal with their point
of view. But on further consideration I have come to the conclusion that
I must and that for two reasons. Firstly, their attitude to the problem of
caste is not merely an attitude of neutrality, but is an attitude of armed
neutrality. Secondly, they probably represent a considerable body of people.
Of these, there is one set which finds nothing peculiar nor odious in the
Caste System of the Hindus. Such Hindus cite the case of Muslims, Sikhs
and Christians and find comfort in the fact that they too have castes
amongst them. In considering, this question you must at the outset bear
in mind that nowhere is human society one single whole. It is always
plural. In the world of action, the individual is one limit and society the
other. Between them lie all sorts of associative arrangements of lesser
and larger scope, families, friendship, co-operative associations, business
combines, political parties, bands of thieves and robbers. These small
groups are usually firmly welded together and are often as exclusive as
castes. They have a narrow and intensive code, which is often anti-social.
This is true of every society, in Europe as well as in Asia. The question
to be asked in determining whether a given society is an ideal society; is
not whether there are groups in it, because groups exist in all societies.
The questions to be asked in determining what is an ideal society are :
How numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously shared
by the groups ? How full and free is the interplay with other forms of
associations ? Are the forces that separate groups and classes more numerous
than the forces that unite ? What social significance is attached to this
group life ? Is its exclusiveness a matter of custom and convenience or is
it a matter of religion ? It is in the light of these questions that one must

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

65

decide whether caste among Non-Hindus is the same as caste among Hindus.
If we apply these considerations to castes among Mohammedans, Sikhs and
Christians on the one hand and to castes among Hindus on the other, you
will find that caste among Non-Hindus is fundamentally different from caste
among Hindus. First, the ties, which consciously make the Hindus hold
together, are non-existent, while among Non-Hindus there are many that
hold them together. The strength of a society depends upon the presence of
points of contact, possibilities of interaction between different groups which
exist in it. These are what Carlyle calls “organic filaments” i.e. the elastic
threads which help to bring the disintegrating elements together and to
reunite them. There is no integrating force among the Hindus to counteract
the disintegration caused by caste. While among the Non-Hindus there
are plenty of these organic filaments which bind them together. Again it
must be borne in mind that although there are castes among Non-Hindus,
as there are among Hindus, caste has not the same social significance for
Non-Hindus as it has for Hindus. Ask Mohammedan or a Sikh, who he is ?
He tells you that he is a Mohammedan or a Sikh as the case may be. He
does not tell you his caste although he has one and you are satisfied with
his answer. When he tells you that he is a Muslim, you do not proceed to
ask him whether he is a Shiya or a Sunni; Sheikh or Saiyad; Khatik or
Pinjari. When he tells you he is a Sikh, you do not ask him whether he is
Jat or Roda; Mazbi or Ramdasi. But you are not satisfied, if a person tells
you that he is a Hindu. You feel bound to inquire into his caste. Why ?
Because so essential is caste in the case of a Hindu that without knowing
it you do not feel sure what sort of a being he is. That caste has not the
same social significance among Non-Hindus as it has among Hindus is clear
if you take into consideration the consequences which follow breach of caste.
There may be castes among Sikhs and Mohammedans but the Sikhs and the
Mohammedans will not outcast a Sikh or a Mohammedan if he broke his
caste. Indeed, the very idea of excommunication is foreign to the Sikhs and
the Mohammedans. But with the Hindus the case is entirely different. He
is sure to be outcasted if he broke caste. This shows the difference in the
social significance of caste to Hindus and Non-Hindus. This is the second
point of difference. But there is also a third and a more important one. Caste
among the non-Hindus has no religious consecration ; but among the Hindus
most decidedly it has. Among the Non-Hindus, caste is only a practice, not a
sacred institution. They, did not originate it. With them it is only a survival.
They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels the Hindus
to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue. Religion does not
compel the Non-Hindus to take the same attitude towards caste. If Hindus
wish to break caste, their religion will come in their way. But it will not be
so in the case of Non-Hindus. It is, therefore, a dangerous delusion to take
comfort in the mere existence of caste among Non-Hindus, without caring
to know what place caste occupies in their life and whether there are other

66

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

“organic filaments”, which subordinate the feeling of caste to the feeling of
community. The sooner the Hindus are cured of this delusion the better.

The other set denies that caste presents any problem at all for the Hindus
to consider. Such Hindus seek comfort in the view that the Hindus have
survived and take this as a proof of their fitness to survive. This point of
view is well expressed by Prof. S. Radhakrishnan in his Hindu view of
Life. Referring to Hinduism he says, “The civilization itself has not been a
shortlived one. Its historic records date back for over four thousand years
and even then it had reached a stage of civilization which has continued
its unbroken, though at times slow and static, course until the present day.
It has stood the stress and strain of more than four or five millenniums
of spiritual thought and experience. Though peoples of different races and
cultures have been pouring into India from the dawn of History, Hinduism
has been able to maintain its supremacy and even the proselytising creeds
backed by political power have not been able to coerce the large majority
of Hindus to their views. The Hindu culture possesses some vitality which
seems to be denied to some other more forceful currents. It is no more
necessary to dissect Hinduism than to open a tree to see whether the sap
still runs.” The name of Prof. Radhakrishnan is big enough to invest with
profundity whatever he says and impress the minds of his readers. But I
must not hesitate to speak out my mind. For, I fear that, his statement
may become the basis of a vicious argument that the fact of survival is
proof of fitness to survive. It seems to me that the question is not whether
a community lives or dies ; the question is on what plane does it live. There
are different modes of survival. But all are not equally honourable. For an
individual as well as for a society, there is a gulf between merely living
and living worthily. To fight in a battle and to live in glory is one mode. To
beat a retreat, to surrender and to live the life of a captive is also a mode
of survival. It is useless for a Hindu to take comfort in the fact that he and
his people have survived. What he must consider is what is the quality of
their survival. If he does that, I am sure he will cease to take pride in the
mere fact of survival. A Hindu’s life has been a life of continuous defeat
and what appears to him to be life everlasting is not living everlastingly
but is really a life which is perishing everlastingly. It is a mode of survival
of which every right-minded Hindu, who is not afraid to own up the truth,
will feel ashamed.

XX

There is no doubt, in my opinion, that unless you change your social
order you can achieve little by way of progress. You cannot mobilize the
community either for defence or for offence. You cannot build anything on
the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build
up a morality. Anything that you will build on the foundations of caste will
crack and will never be a whole.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

67

The only question that remains to be considered is — How to bring about
the reform of the Hindu social order ? How to abolish caste ? This is a
question of supreme importance. There is a view that in the reform of
caste, the first step to take, is to abolish sub-castes. This view is based
upon the supposition that there is a greater similarity in manners and
status between sub-castes than there is between castes. I think, this is an
erroneous supposition. The Brahmins of Northern and Central India are
socially of lower grade, as compared with the Brahmins of the Deccan and
Southern India. The former are only cooks and water-carriers while the
latter occupy a high social position. On the other hand, in Northern India,
the Vaishyas and Kayasthas are intellectually and socially on a par with the
Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern India. Again, in the matter of food
there is no similarity between the Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern
India, who are vegetarians and the Brahmins of Kashmir and Bengal who
are non-vegetarians. On the other hand, the Brahmins of the Deccan and
Southern India have more in common so far as food is concerned with such
non-Brahmins as the Gujaratis, Marwaris, Banias and Jains. There is no
doubt that from the standpoint of making the transit from one caste to
another easy, the fusion of the Kayasthas of Northern India and the other
Non-Brahmins of Southern India with the Non-Brahmins of the Deccan and
the Dravid country is more practicable than the fusion of the Brahmins of
the South with the Brahmins of the North. But assuming that the fusion
of sub -Castes is possible, what guarantee is there that the abolition of sub-
Castes will necessarily lead to the abolition of Castes ? On the contrary,
it may happen that the process may stop with the abolition of sub-Castes.
In that case, the abolition of sub-Castes will only help to strengthen the
Castes and make them more powerful and therefore more mischievous.
This remedy is therefore neither practicable nor effective and may easily
prove to be a wrong remedy. Another plan of action for the abolition of
Caste is to begin with inter-caste dinners. This also, in my opinion, is an
inadequate remedy. There are many Castes which allow inter-dining. But
it is a common experience that inter-dining has not succeeded in killing
the spirit of Caste and the consciousness of Caste. I am convinced that the
real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling
of being kith and kin and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred,
becomes paramount the separatist feeling — the feeling of being aliens —
created by Caste will not vanish. Among the Hindus inter-marriage must
necessarily be a factor of greater force in social life than it need be in the
life of the non-Hindus. Where society is already well-knit by other ties,
marriage is an ordinary incident of life. But where society cut asunder,
marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of urgent necessity. The real
remedy for breaking Caste is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as the
solvent of Caste. Your Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal has adopted this line of attack

68

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

It is a direct, and frontal attack, and I congratulate you upon a correct
diagnosis and more upon your having shown the courage to tell the Hindus
what is really wrong with them. Political tyranny is nothing compared to
social tyranny and a reformer, who defies society, is a much more courageous
man than a politician, who defies Government. You are right in holding
that Caste will cease to be an operative force only when inter-dining and
inter-marriage have become matters of common course. You have located
the source of the disease. But is your prescription the right prescription for
the disease ? Ask yourselves this question; Why is it that a large majority
of Hindus do not inter-dine and do not inter-marry? Why is it that your
cause is not popular ? There can be only one answer to this question and
it is that inter-dining and inter-marriage are repugnant to the beliefs and
dogmas which the Hindus regard as sacred. Caste is not a physical object
like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the Hindus from
co-mingling and which has, therefore, to be pulled down. Caste is a notion,
it is a state of the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore mean
the destruction of a physical barrier. It means a notional change. Caste may
be bad. Caste may lead to conduct so gross as to be called man’s inhumanity
to man. All the same, it must be recognized that the Hindus observe Caste
not because they are inhuman or wrong headed. They observe Caste because
they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my
view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of
Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy, you must grapple with,
is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them
this religion of Caste. Criticising and ridiculing people for not inter-dining
or inter-marrying or occasionally holding inter-caste dinners and celebrating
inter-caste marriages, is a futile method of achieving the desired end. The
real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras. How
do you expect to succeed, if you allow the Shastras to continue to mould
the beliefs and opinions of the people ? Not to question the authority of the
Shastras, to permit the people to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions
and to blame them and to criticise them for their acts as being irrational
and inhuman is a incongruous way of carrying on social reform. Reformers
working for the removal of untouchability including Mahatma Gandhi, do
not seem to realize that the acts of the people are merely the results of
their beliefs inculcated upon their minds by the Shastras and that people
will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of
the Shastras on which their conduct is founded. No wonder that such efforts
have not produced any results. You also seem to be erring in the same way
as the reformers working in the cause of removing untouchability. To agitate
for and to organise inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages is like forced
feeding brought about by artificial means. Make every man and woman free
from the thraldom of the Shastras, cleanse their minds of the pernicious

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

69

notions founded on the Shastras, and he or she will inter-dine and inter-
marry, without your telling him or her to do so.

It is no use seeking refuge in quibbles. It is no use telling people that
the Shastras do not say what they are believed to say, grammatically
read or logically interpreted. What matters is how the Shastras have been
understood by the people. You must take the stand that Buddha took. You
must take the stand which Guru Nanak took. You must not only discard
the Shastras, you must deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak.
You must have courage to tell the Hindus, that what is wrong with them
is their religion — the religion which has produced in them this notion of the
sacredness of Caste. Will you show that courage ?

XXI

What are your chances of success ? Social reforms fall into different species.
There is a species of reform, which does not relate to the religious notion of
people but is purely secular in character. There is also a species of reform,
which relates to the religious notions of people. Of such a species of reform,
there are two varieties. In one, the reform accords with the principles of the
religion and merely invites people, who have departed from it, to revert to
them and to follow them. The second is a reform which not only touches
the religious principles but is diametrically opposed to those principles
and invites people to depart from and to discard their authority and to
act contrary to those principles. Caste is the natural outcome of certain
religious beliefs which have the sanction of the Shastras, which are believed
to contain the command of divinely inspired sages who were endowed with a
supernatural wisdom and whose commands, therefore, cannot be disobeyed
without committing sin. The destruction of Caste is a reform which falls
under the third category. To ask people to give up Caste is to ask them to
go contrary to their fundamental religious notions. It is obvious that the
first and second species of reform are easy. But the third is a stupendous
task, well-nigh impossible. The Hindus hold to the sacredness of the social
order. Caste has a divine basis. You must therefore destroy the sacredness
and divinity with which Caste has become invested. In the last analysis,
this means you must destroy the authority of the Shastras and the Vedas.

I have emphasized this question of the ways and means of destroying Caste,
because I think that knowing the proper ways and means is more important
than knowing the ideal. If you do not know the real ways and means, all
your shots are sure to be misfires. If my analysis is correct then your task
is herculean. You alone can say whether you are capable of achieving it.

Speaking for myself, I see the task to be well-nigh impossible. Perhaps you
would like to know why I think so. Out of the many reasons, which have led
me to take this view, I will mention some, which I regard much important.

70

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

One of these reasons is the attitude of hostility, which the Brahmins have
shown towards this question. The Brahmins form the vanguard of the
movement for political reform and in some cases also of economic reform.
But they are not to be found even as camp-followers in the army raised
to break down the barricades of Caste. Is there any hope of the Brahmins
ever taking up a lead in the future in this matter ? I say no. You may ask
why ? You may argue that there is no reason why Brahmins should continue
to shun social reform. You may argue that the Brahmins know that the
bane of Hindu Society is Caste and as an enlightened class could not be
expected to be indifferent to its consequences. You may argue that there
are secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins and if the latter do not take
up the cudgels on behalf of those who want to break Caste, the former will.
All this of course sounds very plausible. But in all this it is forgotten that
the break up of the Caste system is bound to affect adversely the Brahmin
Caste. Having regard to this, is it reasonable to expect that the Brahmins
will ever consent to lead a movement the ultimate result of which is to
destroy the power and prestige of the Brahmin Caste ? Is it reasonable to
expect the secular Brahmins to take part in a movement directed against
the priestly Brahmins ? In my judgment, it is useless to make a distinction
between the secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins. Both are kith and
kin. They are two arms of the same body and one bound to fight for the
existence of the other. In this connection, I am reminded of some very pregnant
remarks made by Prof. Dicey in his English Constitution. Speaking of the
actual limitation on the legislative supremacy of Parliament, Dicey says :
“The actual exercise of authority by any sovereign whatever, and notably
by Parliament, is bounded or controlled by two limitations. Of these the one
is an external, and the other is an internal limitation. The external limit
to the real power of a sovereign consists in the possibility or certainty that
his subjects or a large number of them will disobey or resist his laws. . .
The internal limit to the exercise of sovereignty arises from the nature of
the sovereign power itself. Even a despot exercises his powers in accordance
with his character, which is itself moulded by the circumstance under which
he lives, including under that head the moral feelings of the time and the
society to which he belongs. The Sultan could not, if he would, change the
religion of the Mohammedan world, but even if he could do so, it is in the
very highest degree improbable that the head of Mohammedanism should wish
to overthrow the religion of Mohammed ; the internal check on the exercise
of the Sultan’s power is at least as strong as the external limitation. People
sometimes ask the idle question, why the Pope does not introduce this or
that reform ? The true answer is that a revolutionist is not the kind of man
who becomes a Pope and that a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to
be a revolutionist.” I think, these remarks apply equally to the Brahmins
of India and one can say with equal truth that if a man who becomes a
Pope has no wish to become a revolutionary, a man who is born a Brahmin

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

71

has much less desire to become a revolutionary. Indeed, to expect a Brahmin
to be a revolutionary in matters of social reform is as idle as to expect the
British Parliament, as was said by Leslie Stephen, to pass an Act requiring
all blue-eyed babies to be murdered.

Some of you will say that it is a matter of small concern whether the
Brahmins come forward to lead the movement against Caste or whether
they do not. To take this view is in my judgment to ignore the part played
by the intellectual class in the community. Whether you accept the theory
of the great man as the maker of history or whether you do not, this much
you will have to concede that in every country the intellectual class is the
most influential class, if not the governing class. The intellectual class is
the class which can foresee, it is the class which can advise and give lead.
In no country does the mass of the people live the life of intelligent thought
and action. It is largely imitative and follows the intellectual class. There
is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny of a country depends
upon its intellectual class. If the intellectual class is honest, independent and
disinterested it can be trusted to take the initiative and give a proper lead
when a crisis arises. It is true that intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only
a means and the use of means depends upon the ends which an intellectual
person pursues. An intellectual man can be a good man but he can easily be
a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons,
ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity or it may easily be a
gang of crooks or a body of advocates of a narrow clique from which it draws
its support. You may think it a pity that the intellectual class in India is
simply another name for the Brahmin caste. You may regret that the two
are one ; that the existence of the intellectual class should be bound with
one single caste, that this intellectual class should share the interest and the
aspirations of that Brahmin caste, which has regarded itself the custodian
of the interest of that caste, rather than of the interests of the country. All
this may be very regrettable. But the fact remains, that the Brahmins form
the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an intellectual class but
it is a class which is held in great reverence by the rest of the Hindus. The
Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth) 3 u ii-iiH
WSFI I W?; The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers.
Manu says, “If it be asked how it should be with respect to points of the
Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the answer is that which
Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall doubtless have legal force.” :

When such an intellectual class, which holds the rest of the community
in its grip, is opposed to the reform of Caste, the chances of success in a
movement for the break-up of the Caste system appear to me very, very remote.

72

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The second reason, why I say the task is impossible, will be clear if
you will bear in mind that the Caste system has two aspects. In one of its
aspects, it divides men into separate communities. In its second aspect, it
places these communities in a graded order one above the other in social
status. Each caste takes its pride and its consolation in the fact that in the
scale of castes it is above some other caste. As an outward mark of this
gradation, there is also a gradation of social and religious rights technically
spoken of an Ashta-dhikaras and Sanskaras. The higher the grade of a caste,
the greater the number of these rights and the lower the grade, the lesser
their number. Now this gradation, this scaling of castes, makes it impossible
to organise a common front against the Caste System. If a caste claims
the right to inter-dine and inter-marry with another caste placed above it,
it is frozen, instantly it is told by mischief-mongers, and there are many
Brahmins amongst such mischief- mongers, that it will have to concede inter-
dining and inter-marriage with castes below it! All are slaves of the Caste
System. But all the slaves are not equal in status. To excite the proletariat
to bring about an economic revolution, Karl Marx told them : “You have
nothing to lose except your chains.” But the artful way in which the social
and religious rights are distributed among the different castes whereby
some have more and some have less, makes the slogan of Karl Marx quite
useless to excite the Hindus against the Caste System. Castes form a graded
system of sovereignties, high and low, which are jealous of their status and
which know that if a general dissolution came, some of them stand to lose
more of their prestige and power than others do. You cannot, therefore, have
a general mobilization of the Hindus, to use a military expression, for an
attack on the Caste System.

XXII

Can you appeal to reason and ask the Hindus to discard Caste as being
contrary to reason ? That raises the question : Is a Hindu free to follow his
reason ? Manu has laid down three sanctions to which every Hindu must
conform in the matter of his behaviour -t-H Ri : ^

Here there is no place for reason to play its part. A Hindu must follow either
Veda, Smriti or Sadachar. He cannot follow anything else. In the first place
how are the texts of the Vedas and Smritis to be interpreted whenever any
doubt arises regarding their meaning ? On this important question the view
of Manu is quite definite. He says :

^rScfTF^T fl ^ I

TT HlFw=hl II

According to this rule, rationalism as a canon of interpreting the Vedas and
Smritis, is absolutely condemned. It is regarded to be as wicked as atheism and
the punishment provided for it is ex-communication. Thus, where a matter is
covered by the Veda or the Smriti, a Hindu cannot resort to rational thinking.
Even when there is a conflict between Vedas and Smritis on matters on which

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

73

they have given a positive injunction, the solution is not left to reason. When
there is a conflict between two Shrutis, both are to be regarded as of equal
authority. Either of them may be followed. No attempt is to be made to find
out which of the two accords with reason. This is made clear by Manu :

wqrr w%tf Wf i

“When there is a conflict between Shruti and Smriti, the Shruti must
prevail.” But here too, no attempt must be made to find out which of the
two accords with reason. This is laid down by Manu in the following Shloka :

■qi wciqr ^tt^f ^ft^: i

■Hclltdl pHo+xdl: 3^ dRUnkil tt cT: TJJdT: II
Again, when there is a conflict between two Smritis, the Manu-Smriti
must prevail, but no attempt is to be made to find out which of the two
accords with reason. This is the ruling given by Brihaspati:

W^T tt TF^t: Wd I
T^aircFItldl g i|T Wfd: TTF H YHFF1 II
It is, therefore, clear that in any matter on which the Shrutis and Smritis
have given a positive direction, a Hindu is not free to use his reasoning
faculty. The same rule is laid down in the Mahabharat:

■'JCT^F TFFTcr! WTF I

-dcdlR H fF-dcqipH tgfb: II

He must abide by their directions. The Caste and Varna are matters,
which are dealt with by the Vedas and the Smritis and consequently, appeal
to reason can have no effect on a Hindu. So far as Caste and Varna are
concerned, not only the Shastras do not permit the Hindu to use his reason
in the decision of the question, but they have taken care to see that no
occasion is left to examine in a rational way the foundations of his belief
in Caste and Varna. It must be a source of silent amusement to many
a Non-Hindu to find hundreds and thousands of Hindus breaking Caste
on certain occasions, such as railway journey and foreign travel and yet
endeavouring to maintain Caste for the rest of their lives! The explanation
of this phenomenon discloses another fetter on the reasoning faculties of
the Hindus. Man’s life is generally habitual and unreflective. Reflective
thought, in the sense of active, persistent and careful consideration of any
belief or supposed form or knowledge in the light of the grounds that support
it and further conclusions to which it tends, is quite rare and arises only
in a situation which presents a dilemma — a crisis. Railway journeys and
foreign travels are really occasions of crisis in the life of a Hindu and it is
natural to expect a Hindu to ask himself why he should maintain Caste
at all, if he cannot maintain it at all times. But he does not. He breaks
Caste at one step and proceeds to observe it at the next without raising
any question. The reason for this astonishing conduct is to be found in
the rule of the Shastras, which directs him to maintain Caste as far as

74

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

possible and to undergo prayaschitta when he cannot. By this theory of
prayaschitta, the Shastras by following a spirit of compromise have given
caste a perpetual lease of life and have smothered reflective thought which
would have otherwise led to the destruction of the notion of Caste.

There have been many who have worked in the cause of the abolition
of Caste and Untouchability. Of those, who can be mentioned, Ramanuja,
Kabir and others stand out prominently. Can you appeal to the acts of these
reformers and exhort the Hindus to follow them ? It is true that Manu has
included Sadachar (TRTTIT) as one of the sanctions along with Shruti and
Smriti. Indeed, Sadachar has been given a higher place than Shastras :

cnstiwMcj err i

dfe'+.lhfdH 1 1

According to this, Sadachar, whether, it is or ST^rnf in accordance
with Shastras or contrary to Shastras, must be followed. But what is the
meaning of Sadachar ? If any one were to suppose that Sadachar means
right or good acts i.e. acts of good and righteous men he would find himself
greatly mistaken. Sadachar does not means good acts or acts of good men.
It means ancient custom good or bad. The following verse makes this clear :

dR-Pd ^ -g 3TTE|Tt: lKl4*^HId: I
EFTfal TT tKMK BWf II

As though to warn people against the view that Sadachar means good
acts or acts of good men and fearing that people might understand it
that way and follow the acts of good men, the Smritis have commanded
the Hindus in unmistakable terms not to follow even Gods in their good
deeds, if they are contrary to Shruti, Smriti and Sadachar. This may
sound to be most extraordinary, most perverse, but the fact remains that
-T is an injunction, issued to the Hindus by their Shastras.

Reason and morality are the two most powerful weapons in the armoury
of a Reformer. To deprive him of the use of these weapons is to disable
him for action. How are you going to break up Caste, if people are not
free to consider whether it accords with reason ? How are you going to
break up Caste it people are not free to consider whether it accords with
morality ? The wall built around Caste is impregnable and the material,
of which it is built, contains none of the combustible stuff of reason and
morality. Add to this the fact that inside this wall stands the army of
Brahmins who form the intellectual class, Brahmins who are the natural
leaders of the Hindus, Brahmins who are there not as mere mercenary
soldiers but as an army fighting for its homeland and you will get an
idea why I think that breaking-up of Caste amongst the Hindus is well-
nigh impossible. At any rate, it would take ages before a breach is made.
But whether the doing of the deed takes time or whether it can be done
quickly, you must not forget that if you wish to bring about a breach

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

75

in the system then you have got to apply the dynamite to the Vedas and the
Shastras, which deny any part to reason, to Vedas and Shastras, which deny
any part to morality. You must destroy the Religion of the Shrutis and the
Smritis. Nothing else will avail. This is my considered view of the matter.

XXIII

Some may not understand what I mean by destruction of Religion ; some
may find the idea revolting to them and some may find it revolutionary.
Let me therefore explain my position. I do not know whether you draw
a distinction between principles and rules. But I do. Not only I make a
distinction but I say that this distinction is real and important. Rules are
practical; they are habitual ways of doing things according to prescription.
But principles are intellectual; they are useful methods of judging things.
Rules seek to tell an agent just what course of action to pursue. Principles
do not prescribe a specific course of action. Rules, like cooking recipes, do
tell just what to do and how to do it. A principle, such as that of justice,
supplies a main head by reference to which he is to consider the bearings
of his desires and purposes, it guides him in his thinking by suggesting
to him the important consideration which he should bear in mind. This
difference between rules and principles makes the acts done in pursuit of
them different in quality and in content. Doing what is said to be good by
virtue of a rule and doing good in the light of a principle are two different
things. The principle may be wrong but the act is conscious and responsible.
The rule may be right but the act is mechanical. A religious act may not
be a correct act but must at least be a responsible act. To permit of this
responsibility, Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only. It cannot
be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules it ceases to be
Religion, as it kills responsibility which is the essence of a truly religious
act. What is this Hindu Religion ? Is it a set of principles or is it a code
of rules ? Now the Hindu Religion, as contained in the Vedas and the
Smritis, is nothing but a mass of sacrificial, social, political and sanitary
rules and regulations, all mixed up. What is called Religion by the Hindus
is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions. Religion, in the
sense of spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to all races, to all
countries, to all times, is not to be found in them, and if it is, it does not
form the governing part of a Hindu’s life. That for a Hindu, Dharma means
commands and prohibitions is clear from the way the word Dharma is used
in Vedas and the Smritis and understood by the commentators. The word
Dharma as used in the Vedas in most cases means religious ordinances or
rites. Even Jaimini in his Purva-Mimansa defines Dharma as “a desirable
goal or result that is indicated by injunctive ( Vedic ) passages”. To put it
in plain language, what the Hindus call Religion is really Law or at best
legalized class-ethics. Frankly, I refuse to call this code of ordinances, as
Religion. The first evil of such a code of ordinances, misrepresented to the

76

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

people as Religion, is that it tends to deprive moral life of freedom and
spontaneity and to reduce it (for the conscientious at any rate) to a more
or less anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed rules. Under
it, there is no loyalty to ideals, there is only conformity to commands. But
the worst evil of this code of ordinances is that the laws it contains must
be the same yesterday, today and forever. They are iniquitous in that they
are not the same for one class as for another. But this iniquity is made
perpetual in that they are prescribed to be the same for all generations. The
objectionable part of such a scheme is not that they are made by certain
persons called Prophets or Law-givers. The objectionable part is that this
code has been invested with the character of finality and fixity. Happiness
notoriously varies with the conditions and circumstances of a person, as well
as with the conditions of different people and epochs. That being the case,
how can humanity endure this code of eternal laws, without being cramped
and without being crippled ? I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that
such a religion must be destroyed and I say, there is nothing irreligious in
working for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your
bounden duty to tear the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that as
caused by misnaming this Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you.
Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception and enable
them to realize that what they are told as Religion is not Religion but that
it is really Law, you will be in a position to urge for its amendment or
abolition. So long as people look upon it as Religion they will not be ready
for a change, because the idea of Religion is generally speaking not associated
with the idea of change. But the idea of law is associated with the idea of
change and when people come to know that what is called Religion is really
Law, old and archaic, they will be ready for a change, for people know and
accept that law can be changed.

xxrv

While I condemn a Religion of Rules, I must not be understood to hold
the opinion that there is no necessity for a religion. On the contrary, I agree
with Burke when he says that, “True religion is the foundation of society,
the basis on which all true Civil Government rests, and both their sanction.”
Consequently, when I urge that these ancient rules of life be annulled, I
am anxious that its place shall be taken by a Religion of Principles, which
alone can lay claim to being a true Religion. Indeed, I am so convinced of the
necessity of Religion that I feel I ought to tell you in outline what I regard as
necessary items in this religious reform. The following in my opinion should
be the cardinal items in this reform : (1) There should be one and only one
standard book of Hindu Religion, acceptable to all Hindus and recognized by
all Hindus. This of course means that all other books of Hindu religion such as
Vedas, Shastras and Puranas, which are treated as sacred and authoritative,
must by law cease to be so and the preaching of any doctrine, religious or

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

77

social contained in these books should be penalized. (2) It should be better if
priesthood among Hindus was abolished. But as this seems to be impossible,
the priesthood must at least cease to be hereditary. Every person who professes
to be a Hindu must be eligible for being a priest. It should be provided by
law that no Hindu shall be entitled to be a priest unless he has passed
an examination prescribed by the State and holds a sanad from the State
permitting him to practise. (3) No ceremony performed by a priest who does
not hold a sanad shall be deemed to be valid in law and it should be made
penal for a person who has no sanad to officiate as a priest. (4) A priest
should be the servant of the State and should be subject to the disciplinary
action by the State in the matter of his morals, beliefs and worship, in
addition to his being subject along with other citizens to the ordinary law
of the land. (5) The number of priests should be limited by law according to
the requirements of the State as is done in the case of the I.C.S. To some,
this may sound radical. But to my mind there is nothing revolutionary in
this. Every profession in India is regulated. Engineers must show proficiency,
Doctor must show proficiency, Lawyers must show proficiency, before they
are allowed to practise their professions. During the whole of their career,
they must not only obey the law of the land, civil as well as criminal, but
they must also obey the special code of morals prescribed by their respective
professions. The priest’s is the only profession where proficiency is not
required. The profession of a Hindu priest is the only profession which is not
subject to any code. Mentally a priest may be an idiot, physically a priest
may be suffering from a foul disease, such as syphilis or gonorrhea, morally
he may be a wreck. But he is fit to officiate at solemn ceremonies, to enter
the sanctum sanctorum of a Hindu temple and worship the Hindu God. All
this becomes possible among the Hindus because for a priest it is enough
to be born in a priestly caste. The whole thing is abominable and is due to
the fact that the priestly class among Hindus is subject neither to law nor
to morality. It recognizes no duties. It knows only of rights and privileges.
It is a pest which divinity seems to have let loose on the masses for their
mental and moral degradation. The priestly class must be brought under
control by some such legislation as I have outlined above. It will prevent it
from doing mischief and from misguiding people. It will democratise it by
throwing it open to every one. It will certainly help to kill the Brahminism
and will also help to kill Caste, which is nothing but Brahminism incarnate.
Brahminism is the poison which has spoiled Hinduism. You will succeed in
saving Hinduism if you will kill Brahminism. There should be no opposition
to this reform from any quarter. It should be welcomed even by the Arya
Samajists, because this is merely an application of their own doctrine of
guna-karma.

Whether you do that or you do not, you must give a new doctrinal basis
to your Religion — a basis that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity, in short, with Democracy. I am no authority on the subject.

78

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

But I am told that for such religious principles as will be in consonance
with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity it may not be necessary for you to
borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on
the Upanishads. Whether you could do so without a complete remoulding, a
considerable scraping and chipping off the ore they contain, is more than I
can say. This means a complete change in the fundamental notions of life. It
means a complete change in the values of life. It means a complete change
in outlook and in attitude towards men and things. It means conversion ;
but if you do not like the word, I will say, it means new life. But a new life
cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can enter only in a new body.
The old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new
life can enter into it. To put it simply, the old must cease to be operative
before the new can begin to enliven and to pulsate. This is what I meant
when I said you must discard the authority of the Shastras and destroy the
religion of the Shastras.

XXV

I have kept you too long. It is time I brought this address to a close.
This would have been a convenient point for me to have stopped. But this
would probably be my last address to a Hindu audience on a subject vitally
concerning the Hindus. I would therefore like, before I close, to place before
the Hindus, if they will allow me, some questions which I regard as vital
and invite them seriously to consider the same.

In the first place, the Hindus must consider whether it is sufficient to
take the placid view of the anthropologist that there is nothing to be said
about the beliefs, habits, morals and outlooks on life, which obtain among
the different peoples of the world except that they often differ ; or whether
it is not necessary to make an attempt to find out what kind of morality,
beliefs, habits and outlook have worked best and have enabled those who
possessed them to flourish, to go strong, to people the earth and to have
dominion over it. As is observed by Prof. Carver, “Morality and religion, as
the organised expression of moral approval and disapproval, must be regarded
as factors in the struggle for existence as truly as are weapons for offence
and defence, teeth and claws, horns and hoofs, furs and feathers. The social
group, community, tribe or nation, which develops an unworkable scheme of
morality or within which those social acts which weaken it and unfit it for
survival, habitually create the sentiment of approval, while those which would
strengthen and enable it to be expanded habitually create the sentiment
of disapproval, will eventually be eliminated. It is its habits of approval or
disapproval (these are the results of religion and morality) that handicap it,
as really as the possession of two wings on one side with none on the other
will handicap the colony of flies. It would be as futile in the one case as in
the other to argue, that one system is just as good as another.” Morality

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

79

and religion, therefore, are not mere matters of likes and dislikes. You may
dislike exceedingly a scheme of morality, which, if universally practised
within a nation, would make that nation the strongest nation on the face
of the earth. Yet in spite of your dislike such a nation will become strong.
You may like exceedingly a scheme of morality and an ideal of justice, which
if universally practised within a nation, would make it unable to hold its
own in the struggle with other nations. Yet in spite of your admiration this
nation will eventually disappear. The Hindus must, therefore, examine their
religion and their morality in terms of their survival value.

Secondly, the Hindus must consider whether they should conserve the
whole of their social heritage or select what is helpful and transmit to
future generations only that much and no more. Prof. John Dewey, who
was my teacher and to whom I owe so much, has said : “Every society gets
encumbered with what is trivial, with dead wood from the past, and with
what is positively perverse... As a society becomes more enlightened, it
realizes that it is responsible not to conserve and transmit the whole of its
existing achievements, but only such as make for a better future society.”
Even Burke, in spite of the vehemence with which he opposed the principle
of change embodied in the French Revolution, was compelled to admit that
“a State without the means of some change is without the means of its
conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part
of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve.” What
Burke said of a State applies equally to a society.

Thirdly, the Hindus must consider whether they must not cease to worship
the past as supplying its ideals. The beneful effect of this worship of the past
are best summed up by Prof. Dewey when he says : “An individual can live
only in the present. The present is not just something which comes after the
past; much less something produced by it. It is what life is in leaving the
past behind it. The study of past products will not help us to understand
the present. A knowledge of the past and its heritage is of great significance
when it enters into the present, but not otherwise. And the mistake of making
the records and remains of the past the main material of education is that
it tends to make the past a rival of the present and the present a more or
less futile imitation of the past.” The principle, which makes little of the
present act of living and growing, naturally looks upon the present as empty
and upon the future as remote. Such a principle is inimical to progress and
is an hindrance to a strong and a steady current of life.

Fourthly, the Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for
them to recognize that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing
sanatan; that everything is changing, that change is the law of life for
individuals as well as for society. In a changing society, there must be a
constant revolution of old values and the Hindus must realize that if there

80

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

must be standards to measure the acts of men there must also be a readiness
to revise those standards.

XXVI

I have to confess that this address has become too lengthy. Whether this
fault is compensated to any extent by breadth or depth is a matter for you
to judge. All I claim is to have told you candidly my views. I have little to
recommend them but some study and a deep concern in your destiny. If you
will allow me to say, these views are the views of a man, who has been no
tool of power, no flatterer of greatness. They come from one, almost the whole
of whose public exertion has been one continuous struggle for liberty for the
poor and for the oppressed and whose only reward has been a continuous
shower of calumny and abuse from national journals and national leaders,
for no other reason except that I refuse to join with them in performing the
miracle — I will not say trick — of liberating the oppressed with the gold of
the tyrant and raising the poor with the cash of the rich. All this may not
be enough to commend my views. I think they are not likely to alter yours.
But whether they do or do not, the responsibility is entirely yours. You must
make your efforts to uproot Caste, if not in my way, then in your way. I am
sorry, I will not be with you. I have decided to change. This is not the place
for giving reasons. But even when I am gone out of your fold, I will watch
your movement with active sympathy and you will have my assistance for
what it may be worth. Yours is a national cause. Caste is no doubt primarily
the breath of the Hindus. But the Hindus have fouled the air all over and
everybody is infected, Sikh, Muslim and Christian. You, therefore, deserve
the support of all those who are suffering from this infection, Sikh, Muslim
and Christian. Yours is more difficult than the other national cause, namely
Swaraj. In the fight for Swaraj you fight with the whole nation on your side.
In this, you have to fight against the whole nation and that too, your own.
But it is more important than Swaraj. There is no use having Swaraj, if
you cannot defend it. More important than the question of defending Swaraj
is the question of defending the Hindus under the Swaraj. In my opinion
only when the Hindu Society becomes a casteless society that it can hope
to have strength enough to defend itself. Without such internal strength,
Swaraj for Hindus may turn out to be only a step towards slavery. Good-bye
and good wishes for your success.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

81

APPENDIX I

A VINDICATION OF CASTE BY MAHATMA GANDHI

(A Reprint of his Articles in the “Harijan” )

Dr. Ambedkar’s Indictment

I

The readers will recall the fact that Dr. Ambedkar was to have presided
last May at the annual conference of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore.
But the conference itself was cancelled because Dr. Ambedkar’s address was
found by the Reception Committee to be unacceptable. How far a Reception
Committee is justified in rejecting a President of its choice because of his
address that may be objectionable to it is open to question. The Committee
knew Dr. Ambedkar’s views on casts; and the Hindu scriptures. They
knew also that he had in unequivocal terms decided to give up Hinduism.
Nothing less than the address that Dr. Ambedkar had prepared was to be
expected from him. The committee appears to have deprived the public of an
opportunity of listening to the original views of a man, who has carved out
for himself a unique position in society. Whatever label he wears in future,
Dr. Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.

Dr. Ambedkar was not going to be beaten by the Reception Committee.
He has answered their rejection of him by publishing the address at his
own expense. He has priced it at 8 annas, I would suggest a reduction to
2 annas or at least 4 annas.

No reformer can ignore the address. The orthodox will gain by reading it.
This is not to say that the address is not open to objection. It has to be read
only because it is open to serious objection. Dr. Ambedkar is a challenge to
Hinduism. Brought up as a Hindu, educated by a Hindu potentate, he has
become so disgusted with the so-called Savarna Hindus for the treatment that
he and his people have received at their hands that he proposes to leave not
only them but the very religion that is his and their common heritage. He
has transferred to that religion, his disgust against a part of its professors.

But this is not to be wondered at. After all, one can only judge a system
or an institution by the conduct of its representatives. What is more.
Dr. Ambedkar found that the vast majority of Savarna Hindus had not only
conducted themselves inhumanly against those of their fellow religionists,
whom they classed as untouchables, but they had based their conduct on the
authority of their scriptures, and when he began to search them he had found
ample warrant for their beliefs in untouchability and all its implications.
The author of the address has quoted chapter and verse in proof of his
three-fold indictment — inhuman conduct itself, the unabashed justification
for it on the part of the perpetrators, and the subsequent discovery that the
justification was warranted by their scriptures.

82

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

No Hindu who prizes his faith above life itself can afford to underrate
the importance of this indictment. Dr. Ambedkar is not alone in his disgust
He is its most uncompromising exponent and one of the ablest among them.
He is certainly the most irreconcilable among them. Thank God, in the front
rank of the leaders, he is singularly alone and as yet but a representative
of a very small minority. But what he says is voiced with more or less
vehemence by many leaders belonging to the depressed classes. Only the
latter, for instance Rao Bahadur M. C. Rajah and Dewan Bahadur Srinivasan,
not only do not threaten to give up Hinduism but find enough warmth in
it to compensate for the shameful persecution to which the vast mass of
Harijans are exposed.

But the fact of many leaders remaining in the Hindu fold is no warrant
for disregarding what Dr. Ambedkar has to say. The Savarnas have to correct
their belief and their conduct. Above all those who are by their learning and
influence among the Savarnas have to give an authoritative interpretation of
the scriptures. The questions that Dr. Ambedkar’s indictment suggest are :

(1) What are the scriptures ?

(2) Are all the printed texts to be regarded as an integral part of them
or is any part of them to be rejected as unauthorised interpolations ?

(3) What is the answer of such accepted and expurgated scriptures on
the question of untouchability, caste, equality of status, inter-dining
and intermarriages ?

(These have been all examined by Dr. Ambedkar in his address.)

I must reserve for the next issue my own answer to these questions and
a statement of the (at least some) manifest flaws in Dr. Ambedkar’s thesis,

(. Harijan , July 11, 1936)

II

The Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis and Puranas including Ramayana and
Mahabharata are the Hindu Scriptures. Nor is this a finite list. Every age or
even generation has added to the list. It follows, therefore, that everything
printed or even found handwritten is not scripture. The Smritis for instance
contain much that can never be accepted as the word of God. Thus, many
of the texts that Dr. Ambedkar quotes from the Smritis cannot be accepted
as authentic. The scriptures, properly so-called, can only be concerned with
eternal varieties and must appeal to any conscience i.e. any heart whose eyes
of understanding are opened. Nothing can be accepted as the word of God
which cannot be tested by reason or be capable of being spiritually experienced.
And even when you have an expurgated edition of the scriptures, you will
need their interpretation. Who is the best interpreter? Not learned men
surely. Learning there must be. But religion does not live by it. It lives in the
experiences of its saints and seers, in their lives and sayings. When all the

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

83

most learned commentators of the scriptures are utterly forgotten, the
accumulated experience of the sages and saints will abide and be an
inspiration for ages to come.

Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not
know and do not need to know for the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger.
But I do know that it is harmful both to spiritual and national growth.
Varna and Ashrama are institutions which have nothing to do with castes.
The law of Varna teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread
by following the ancestral calling. It defines not our rights but our duties.
It necessarily has reference to callings that are conducive to the welfare
of humanity and to no other. It also follows that there is no calling too
low and none too high. All are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status.
The callings of a Brahmin — spiritual teacher — and a scavenger are equal,
and their due performance carries equal merit before God and at one time
seems to have carried identical reward before man. Both were entitled to
their livelihood and no more. Indeed one traces even now in the villages
the faint lines of this healthy operation of the law. Living in Segaon with
its population of 600 , I do not find a great disparity between the earnings
of different tradesmen including Brahmins. I find too that real Brahmins
are to be found even in these degenerate days who are living on alms freely
given to them and are giving freely of what they have of spiritual treasures.
It would be wrong and improper to judge the law of Varna by its caricature
in the lives of men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst they openly
commit a breach of its only operative rule. Arrogation of a superior status by
and of the Varna over another is a denial of the law. And there is nothing
in the law of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability. (The essence of
Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only God as Truth and
its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of the human family.)

I am aware that my interpretation of Hinduism will be disputed by many
besides Dr. Ambedkar. That does not affect my position. It is an interpretation
by which I have lived for nearly half a century and according to which I
have endeavoured to the best of my ability to regulate my life.

In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar has made in
his address is to pick out the texts of doubtful authenticity and value and
the state of degraded Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they so
woefully misrepresent. Judged by the standard applied by Dr. Ambedkar,
every known living faith will probably fail.

In his able address, the learned Doctor has overproved his case- Can a
religion that was professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar,
Ramkrishna Paramahansa, Raja Rain Mohan Roy, Maharshi Devendranath
Tagore, Vivekanand and host of others who might be easily mentioned, so
utterly devoid of merit as is made out in Dr. Ambedkar’s address ? A religion

84

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have
produced. For that and that alone can be used as the standard to aspire
to, if not to improve upon.

(. Harijan , July 18, 1936)

III

VARNA VERSUS CASTE

Shri Sant Ramji of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore wants me to
publish the following :

“I have read your remarks about Dr. Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat-Todak
Mandal, Lahore. In that connection I beg to submit as follows :

“We did not invite Dr. Ambedkar to preside over our conference because
he belonged to the Depressed Classes, for we do not distinguish between
a touchable and an untouchable Hindu. On the contrary our choice fell
on him simply because his diagnosis of the fatal disease of the Hindu
community was the same as ours, i.e. he too was of the opinion that caste
system was the root cause of the disruption and downfall of the Hindus.
The subject of the Doctor’s thesis for Doctorate being caste system, he has
studied the subject thoroughly. Now the object of our conference was to
pursuade the Hindus to annihilate castes but the advice of a non-Hindu
in social and religious matters can have no effect on them. The Doctor in
the supplementary portion of his address insisted on saying that that was
his last speech as a Hindu, which was irrelevant as well as pernicious
to the interests of the conference. So we requested him to expunge that
sentence for he could easily say the same thing on any other occasion. But
he refused and we saw no utility in making merely a show of our function.

In spite of all this, I cannot help praising his address which is, as far as
I know, the most learned thesis on the subject and worth translating into
every vernacular of India.

Moreover, I want to bring to your notice that your philosophical
difference between Caste and Varna is too subtle to be grasped by people
in general, because for all practical purposes in the Hindu society Caste
and Varna are one and the same thing, for the function of both of them
is one and the same i.e. to restrict inter-caste marriages and inter-dining.
Your theory of Varnavyavastha is impracticable in this age and there
is no hope of its revival in the near future. But Hindus are slaves of
caste and do not want to destroy it. So when you advocate your ideal of
imaginary Varnavyavastha they find justification for clinging to caste.
Thus you are doing a great disservice to social reform by advocating
your imaginary utility of division of Varnas, for it creates hindrance in
our way. To try to remove untouchability without striking at the root of
Varnavyavastha is simply to treat the outward symptoms of a disease or
to draw a line on the surface of water. As in the heart of their hearts

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

85

dvijas do not want to give social equality to the so-called touchable and
untouchable Shudras, so they refuse to break caste, and give liberal donations
for the removal of untouchability, simply to evade the issue. To seek the help
of the Shastras for the removal of untouchability and caste is simply to wash
mud with mud.”

The last paragraph of the letter surely cancels the first. If the Mandal
rejects the help of the Shastras, they do exactly what Dr. Ambedkar does,
i.e. cease to be Hindus. How then can they object to Dr. Ambedkar’s address
merely because he said that that was his last speech as a Hindu ? The
position appears to be wholly untenable especially when the Mandal, for
which , Shri Sant Ram claims to speak, applauds the whole argument of
Dr. Ambedkar’s address.

But it is pertinent to ask what the Mandal believes if it rejects the
Shastras. How can a Muslim remain one if he rejects the Quran, or a
Christian remain Christian if he rejects the Bible ? If Caste and Varna are
convertible terms and if Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which
define Hinduism, I do not know how a person who rejects Caste i.e. Varna
can call himself a Hindu.

Shri Sant Ram likens the Shastras to mud. Dr. Ambedkar has not, so
far as I remember, given any such pictures que name to the Shastras. I
have certainly meant when I have said that if Shastras support the existing
untouchability I should cease to call myself a Hindu. Similarly, if the
Shastras support caste as we know it today in all its hideousness, I may
not call myself or remain a Hindu since I have no scruples about interdining
or intermarriage. I need not repeat my position regarding Shastras and
their interpretation. I venture to suggest to Shri Sant Ram that it is the
only rational and correct and morally defensible position and it has ample
warrant in Hindu tradition.

(Harijan, August 15, 1936)

86

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX II

A REPLY TO THE MAHATMA BY DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR

I

I appreciate greatly the honour done me by the Mahatma in taking notice
in his Harijan of the speech on Caste which I had prepared for the Jat Pat
Todak Mandal. From a perusal of his review of my speech it is clear that
the Mahatma completely dissents from the views I have expressed on the
subject of Caste. I am not in the habit of entering into controversy with
my opponents unless there are special reasons which compel me to act
otherwise. Had my opponent been some mean and obscure person I would
not have pursued him. But my opponent being the Mahatma himself I feel
I must attempt to meet the case to the contrary which he has sought to
put forth. While I appreciate the honour he has done me, I must confess to
a sense of surprize on finding that of all the persons the Mahatma should
accuse me of a desire to seek publicity as he seems to do when he suggests
that in publishing the undelivered speech my object was to see that I was
not “forgotten”. Whatever the Mahatma may choose to say my object in
publishing the speech was to provoke the Hindus to think and take stock
of their position. I have never hankered for publicity and if I may say so, I
have more of it than I wish or need. But supposing it was out of the motive
of gaining publicity that I printed the speech who could cast a stone at me ?
Surely not those, who like the Mahatma live in glass houses.

II

Motive apart, what has the Mahatma to say on the question raised by
me in the speech ? First of all any one who reads my speech will realize
that the Mahatma has entirely missed the issues raised by me and that the
issues be has raised are not the issues that arise out of what he is pleased
to call my indictment of the Hindus. The principal points which I have tried
to make out in my speech may be catalogued as follows : (1) That caste has
ruined the Hindus ; (2) That the reorganization of the Hindu society on the
basis of Chaturvarnya is impossible because the Varnavyavastha is like a
leaky pot or like a man running at the nose. It is incapable of sustaining
itself by its own virtue and has an inherent tendency to degenerate into a
caste system unless there is a legal sanction behind it which can be enforced
against every one transgressing his Varna ; (3) That the reorganization of the
Hindu Society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is harmful because the effect of
the Varnavyavastha is to degrade the masses by denying them opportunity to
acquire knowledge and to emasculate them by denying them the right to be
armed ; (4) That the Hindu society must be reorganized on a religious basis
which would recognise the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity;
(5) That in order to achieve this object the sense of religious sanctity behind

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

87

Caste and Varna must be destroyed ; (6) That the sanctity of Caste and
Varna can be destroyed only by discarding the divine authority of the
Shastras. It will be noticed that the questions raised by the Mahatma
are absolutely beside the point and show that the main argument of the
speech was lost upon him.

Ill

Let me examine the substance of the points made by the Mahatma. The
first point made by the Mahatma is that the texts cited by me are not
authentic. I confess I am no authority on this matter. But I should like to
state that the texts cited by me are all taken from the writings of the late
Mr. Tilak who was a recognised authority on the Sanskrit language and
on the Hindu Shastras. His second point is that these Shastras should be
interpreted not by the learned but the saints and that, as the saints have
understood them, the Shastras do not support Caste and Untouchability. As
regards the first point what I like to ask the Mahatma is what does it avail
to any one if the texts are interpolations and if they have been differently
interpreted by the saints ? The masses do not make any distinction between
texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The masses do
not know what the texts are. They are too illiterate to know the contents
of the Shastras. They have believed what they have been told and what
they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the
observance of Caste and Untouchability.

With regard to the saints, one must admit that howsoever different
and elevating their teachings may have been as compared to those of
the merely learned they have been lamentably ineffective. They have
been ineffective for two reasons. Firstly, none of the saints ever attacked
the Caste System. On the contrary, they were staunch believers in the
System of Castes. Most of them lived and died as members of the castes
which they respectively belonged. So passionately attached was Jnyandeo
to his status as a Brahmin that when the Brahmins of Paithan would
not admit him to their fold he moved heaven and earth to get his status
as a Brahmin recognized by the Brahmin fraternity. And even the saint
Eknath who now figures in the film “Dharmatma” as a hero for having
shown courage to touch the untouchables and dine with them, did so not
because he was opposed to Caste and Untouchability but because he felt
that the pollution caused thereby could be washed away by a bath in the
sacred waters of the river Ganges.* The saints have never according to
my study carried on a campaign against Caste and Untouchability. They
were not concerned with the struggle between men. They were concerned
with the relation between man and God. They did not preach that all men
were equal. They preached that all men were equal in the eyes of God —

*3UldMI -feis I WHFt II — -qW=TTsft 31. 3Tt.Ut

88

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a very different and a very innocuous proposition which nobody can find
difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in. The second reason why the
teachings of the saints proved ineffective was because the masses have been
taught that a saint might break Caste but the common man must not. A
saint therefore never became an example to follow. He always remained a
pious man to be honoured. That the masses have remained staunch believers
in Caste and Untouchability shows that the pious lives and noble sermons
of the saints have had no effect on their life and conduct as against the
teachings of the Shastras. Thus it can be a matter of no consolation that
there were saints or that there is a Mahatma who understands the Shastras
differently from the learned few or ignorant many. That the masses hold
different view of the Shastras is fact which should and must be reckoned
with. How is that to be dealt with except by denouncing the authority of
the Shastras, which continue to govern their conduct, is a question which
the Mahatma has not considered. But whatever the plan the Mahatma puts
forth as an effective means to free the masses from the teachings of the
Shastras, he must accept that the pious life led by one good Samaritan may
be very elevating to himself but in India, with the attitude the common man
has to saints and to Mahatmas — to honour but not to follow — one cannot
make much out of it.

IV

The third point made by the Mahatma is that a religion professed by
Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Ramkrishna Paramahansa
etc. cannot be devoid of merit as is made out by me and that a religion
has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have
produced. I agree with every word of this statement. But I do not quite
understand what the Mahatma wishes to prove thereby. That religion should
be judged not by its worst specimens but by its best is true enough but does
it dispose of the matter ? I say it does not. The question still remains — why
the worst number so many and the best so few ? To my mind there are
two conceivable answers to this question : (1) That the worst by reason of
some original perversity of theirs are morally uneducable and are therefore
incapable of making the remotest approach to the religious ideal. Or (2) That
the religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral
twist to the lives of the many and that the best have become best in spite
of the wrong ideal — in fact by giving to the wrong twist a turn in the right
direction. Of these two explanations I am not prepared to accept the first
and I am sure that even the Mahatma will not insist upon the contrary. To
my mind the second is the only logical and reasonable explanation unless
the Mahatma has a third alternative to explain why the worst are so many
and the best so few. If the second is the only explanation then obviously
the argument of the Mahatma that a religion should be judged by its best
followers carries us nowhere except to pity the lot of the many who have
gone wrong because they have been made to worship wrong ideals.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

89

V

The argument of the Mahatma that Hinduism would be tolerable if only
many were to follow the example of the saints is fallacious for another
reason.* By citing the names of such illustrious persons as Chaitanya etc.
what the Mahatma seems to me to suggest in its broadest and simplest
form is that Hindu society can be made tolerable and even happy without
any fundamental change in its structure if all the high caste Hindus can be
persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in their dealings with the
low caste Hindus. I am totally opposed to this kind of ideology. I can respect
those of the caste Hindus who try to realize a high social ideal in their life.
Without such men India would be an uglier and a less happy place to live
in than it is. But nonetheless anyone who relies on an attempt to turn the
members of the caste Hindus into better men by improving their personal
character is in my judgment wasting his energy and hugging an illusion.
Can personal character make the maker of armaments a good man, i.e. a
man who will sell shells that will not burst and gas that will not poison ?
If it cannot, how can you accept personal character to make a man loaded
with the consciousness of Caste, a good man, i.e. a man who would treat his
fellows as his friends and equals ? To be true to himself he must deal with
his fellows either as a superior or inferior according as the case may be; at
any rate, differently from his own caste fellows. He can never be expected
to deal with his fellows as his kinsmen and equals. As a matter of fact, a
Hindu does treat all those who are not of his Caste as though they were
aliens, who could be discriminated against with impunity and against whom
any fraud or trick may be practised without shame. This is to say that there
can be a better or a worse Hindu. But a good Hindu there cannot be. This
is so not because there is anything wrong with his personal character. In
fact what is wrong is the entire basis of his relationship to his fellows. The
best of men cannot be moral if the basis of relationship between them and
their fellows is fundamentally a wrong relationship. To a slave his master
may be better or worse. But there cannot be a good master. A good man
cannot be a master and a master cannot be a good man. The same applies
to the relationship between high caste and low caste. To a low caste man
a high caste man can be better or worse as compared to other high caste
men. A high caste man cannot be a good man in so far as he must have
a low caste man to distinguish him as high caste man. It cannot be good
to a low caste man to be conscious that there is a high caste man above
him. I have argued in my speech that a society based on Varna or Caste
is a society which is based on a wrong relationship. I had hoped that the
Mahatma would attempt to demolish my argument. But instead of doing
that he has merely reiterated his belief in Chaturvarnya without disclosing
the ground on which it is based

* In this connection see illuminating article on Morality and the Social Structure by Mr. H. N.
Brailsford in the Aryan Path for April 1936.

90

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

VI

Does the Mahatma practise what he preaches ? One does not like to make
personal reference in an argument which is general in its application. But
when one preaches a doctrine and holds it as a dogma there is a curiosity
to know how far he practises what he preaches. It may be that his failure
to practise is due to the ideal being too high to be attainable ; it may be
that his failure to practise is due to the innate hypocracy of the man. In
any case he exposes his conduct to examination and I must not be blamed
if I asked how far has the Mahatma attempted to realize his ideal in his
own case. The Mahatma is a Bania by birth. His ancestors had abandoned
trading in favour of ministership which is a calling of the Brahmins. In
his own life, before he became a Mahatma, when occasion came for him to
choose his career he preferred law to scales. On abandoning law he became
half saint and half politician. He has never touched trading which is his
ancestral calling. His youngest son — I take one who is a faithful follower
of his father — born a Vaishya has married a Brahmin’s daughter and has
chosen to serve a newspaper magnate. The Mahatma is not known to have
condemned him for not following his ancestral calling. It may be wrong
and uncharitable to judge an ideal by its worst specimens. But surely
the Mahatma as a specimen has no better and if he even fails to realize
the ideal then the ideal must be an impossible ideal quite opposed to the
practical instincts of man. Students of Carlyle know that he often spoke
on a subject before he thought about it. I wonder whether such has not
been the case with the Mahatma in regard to the subject matter of Caste.
Otherwise certain questions which occur to me would not have escaped him.
When can a calling be deemed to have become an ancestral calling so as
to make it binding on a man ? Must man follow his ancestral calling even
if it does not suit his capacities, even when it has ceased to be profitable ?
Must a man live by his ancestral calling even if he finds it to be immoral ?
If every one must pursue his ancestral calling then it must follow that a
man must continue to be a pimp because his grandfather was a pimp and
a woman must continue to be a prostitute because her grandmother was a
prostitute. Is the Mahatma prepared to accept the logical conclusion of his
doctrine ? To me his ideal of following one’s ancestral calling is not only an
impossible and impractical ideal, but it is also morally an indefensible ideal.

VII

The Mahatma sees great virtue in a Brahmin remaining a Brahmin all his
life. Leaving aside the fact there are many Brahmins who do not like to remain
Brahmins all their lives. What can we say about those Brahmins who have
clung to their ancestral calling of priesthood ? Do they do so from any faith in
the virtue of the principle of ancestral calling or do they do so from motives
of filthy lucre ? The Mahatma does not seem to concern himself with such
queries. He is satisfied that these are “real Brahmins who are living on alms

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

91

freely given to them and giving freely what they have of spiritual treasures”.
This is how a hereditary Brahmin priest appears to the Mahatma — a carrier
of spiritual treasures. But another portrait of the hereditary Brahmin can
also be drawn. A Brahmin can be a priest to Vishnu — the God of Love. He
can be a priest to Shankar — the God of Destruction. He can be a priest at
Buddha Gaya worshipping Buddha — the greatest teacher of mankind who
taught the noblest doctrine of Love. He also can be a priest to Kali, the
Goddess, who must have a daily sacrifice of an animal to satisfy her thirst
for blood ; He will be a priest of the temple of Rama — the Kshatriya God! He
will also be a priest of the Temple of Parshuram, the God who took Avatar
to destroy the Kshatriyas ! He can be a priest to Bramha, the Creator of
the world. He can be a priest to a Pir whose God Allah will not brook the
claim of Bramha to share his spiritual dominion over the world! No one can
say that this is a picture which is not true to life. If this is a true picture
one does not know what to say of this capacity to bear loyalties to Gods
and Goddesses whose attributes are so antagonistic that no honest man
can be a devotee to all of them. The Hindus rely upon this extraordinary
phenomenon as evidence of the greatest virtue of their religion — namely
its catholicity, its spirit of toleration. As against this facile view, it can be
urged that what is toleration and catholicity may be really nothing more
creditable than indifference or flaccid latitudinarianism. These two attitudes
are hard to distinguish in their outer seeming. But they are so vitally unlike
in their real quality that no one who examines them closely can mistake
one for the other. That a man is ready to render homage to many Gods
and Goddesses may be cited as evidence of his tolerant spirit. But can it
not also be evidence of insincerity born of a desire to serve the times ? I am
sure that this toleration is merely insincerity. If this view is well founded,
one may ask what spiritual treasure can there be with a person who is
ready to be a priest and a devotee to any deity which it serves his purpose
to worship and to adore ? Not only must such a person be deemed to be
bankrupt of all spiritual treasures but for him to practice so elevating a
profession as that of a priest simply because it is ancestral, without faith,
without belief, merely as a mechanical process handed down from father to
son, is not a conservation of virtue; it is really the prostitution of a noble
profession which is no other than the service of religion.

VIII

Why does the Mahatma cling to the theory of every one following his or
her ancestral calling ? He gives his reasons nowhere. But there must be some
reason although he does not care to avow it. Years ago writing on “Caste versus
Class” in his Young India he argued that Caste System was better than Class
System on the ground that caste was the best possible adjustment of social
stability. If that be the reason why the Mahatma clings to the theory of every

92

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

one following his or her ancestral calling, then he is clinging to a false
view of social life. Everybody wants social stability and some adjustment
must be made in the relationship between individuals and classes in order
that stability may be had. But two things, I am sure nobody wants. One
thing nobody wants is static relationship, something that is unalterable,
something that is fixed for all times. Stability is wanted but not at the cost
of change when change is imperative. Second thing nobody wants is mere
adjustment. Adjustment is wanted but not at the sacrifice of social justice.
Can it be said that the adjustment of social relationship on the basis of
caste i.e. on the basis of each to his hereditary calling avoids these two
evils ? I am convinced that it does not. Far from being the best possible
adjustment I have no doubt that it is of the worst possible kind inasmuch
as it offends against both the canons of social adjustment — namely fluidity
and equity.

IX

Some might think that the Mahatma has made much progress inasmuch
as he now only believes in Varna and does not believe in Caste. It is
true that there was a time when the Mahatma was a full-blooded and a
blue-blooded Sanatani Hindu. He believed in the Vedas, the Upanishads,
the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures and
therefore in avatars and rebirth. He believed in Caste and defended it
with the vigour of the orthodox. He condemned the cry for inter-dining,
inter- drinking and inter- marrying and argued that restraints about inter-
dining to a great extent “helped the cultivation of will-power and the
conservation of certain social virtue”. It is good that he has repudiated
this sanctimonious nonsense and admitted that caste “is harmful both to
spiritual and national growth,” and may be, his son’s marriage outside
his caste has had something to do with this change of view. But has the
Mahatma really progressed ? What is the nature of the Varna for which
the Mahatma stands ? Is it the Vedic conception as commonly understood
and preached by Swami Dayanand Saraswati and his followers, the Arya
Samajists ? The essence of the Vedic conception of Varna is the pursuit of
a calling which is appropriate to one’s natural aptitude. The essence of the
Mahatma’s conception of Varna is the pursuit of ancestral calling irrespective
of natural aptitude. What is the difference between Caste and Varna as
understood by the Mahatma ? I find none. As defined by the Mahatma,
Varna becomes merely a different name for Caste for the simple reason
that it is the same in essence — namely pursuit of ancestral calling. Far
from making progress the Mahatma has suffered retrogression. By putting
this interpretation upon the Vedic conception of Varna he has really made
ridiculous what was sublime. While I reject the Vedic Varnavyavastha for
reasons given in the speech I must admit that the Vedic theory of Varna
as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an
inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

93

the place of an individual in society. It only recognized worth. The Mahatma’s
view of Varna not only makes nonsense of the Vedic Varna but it makes
it an abominable thing. Varna and Caste are two very different concepts.
Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth-while Caste
is based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two are as
distinct as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between
the two. If the Mahatma believes as he does in every one following his
or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is advocating the Caste
System and that in calling it the Varna System he is not only guilty of
terminological inexactitude, but he is causing confusion worse confounded.
I am sure that all his confusion is due to the fact that the Mahatma has
no definite and clear conception as to what is Varna and what is Caste
and as to the necessity of either for the conservation of Hinduism. He has
said and one hopes that he will not find some mystic reason to change his
view that caste is not the essence of Hinduism. Does he regard Varna as
the essence of Hinduism ? One cannot as yet give any categorical answer.
Readers of his article on “Dr. Ambedkar’s Indictment” will answer “No”. In
that article he does not say that the dogma of Varna is an essential part
of the creed of Hinduism. Far from making Varna the essence of Hinduism
he says “the essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one
and only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of
the human family” But the readers of his article in reply to Mr. Sant Ram
will say “Yes”. In that article he says “How can a Muslim remain one if
he rejects the Quran, or a Christian remain as Christian if he rejects
the Bible ? If Caste and Varna are convertible terms and if Varna is an
integral part of the Shastras which define Hinduism I do not know how a
person who rejects Caste, i.e. Varna can call himself a Hindu ?” Why this
prevarication ? Why does the Mahatma hedge ? Whom does he want to
please ? Has the saint failed to sense the truth ? Or does the politician stand
in the way of the Saint ? The real reason why the Mahatma is suffering
from this confusion is probably to be traced to two sources. The first is the
temperament of the Mahatma. He has almost in everything the simplicity
of the child with the child’s capacity for self-deception. Like a child he can
believe in anything he wants to believe. We must therefore wait till such
time as it pleases the Mahatma to abandon his faith in Varna as it has
pleased him to abandon his faith in Caste. The second source of confusion
is the double role which the Mahatma wants to play — of a Mahatma and a
Politician. As a Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize Politics. Whether
he has succeeded in it or not Politics have certainly commercialized him.
A politician must knew that Society cannot bear the whole truth and that
he must not speak the whole truth; if he is speaking the whole truth it
is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting
Caste and Varna is because he is afraid that if he opposed them he will
lose his place in politics. Whatever may be the source of this confusion the

94

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the
people by preaching Caste under the name of Varna.

X

The Mahatma says that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and
Hinduism are too severe and that judged by those standards every known
living faith will probably fail. The complaint that my standards are high
may be true. But the question is not whether they are high or whether they
are low. The question is whether they are the right standards to apply.
A People and their Religion must be judged by social standards based on
social ethics. No other standard would have any meaning if religion is held
to be a necessary good for the well-being of the people. Now I maintain
that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and Hinduism are the
most appropriate standards and that I know of none that are better. The
conclusion that every known religion would fail if tested by my standards
may be true. But this fact should not give the Mahatma as the champion
of Hindus and Hinduism a ground for comfort any more than the existence
of one madman should give comfort to another madman or the existence of
one criminal should give comfort to another criminal. I like to assure the
Mahatma that it is not the mere failure of the Hindus and Hinduism which
has produced in me the feelings of disgust and contempt with which I am
charged. I realize that the world is a very imperfect world and any one
who wants to live in it must bear with its imperfections. But while I am
prepared to bear with the imperfections and shortcomings of the society in
which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should not consent to live in a
society which cherishes wrong ideals or a society which having right ideals
will not consent to bring its social life in conformity with those ideals. If I
am disgusted with Hindus and Hinduism it is because I am convinced that
they cherish wrong ideals and live a wrong social life. My quarrel with
Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct.
It is much more fundamental. It is over their ideals.

XI

Hindu society seems to me to stand in need of a moral regeneration which
it is dangerous to postpone. And the question is who can determine and
control this moral regeneration ? Obviously only those who have undergone an
intellectual regeneration and those who are honest enough to have the courage
of their convictions born of intellectual emancipation. Judged by this standard
the Hindu leaders who count are in my opinion quite unfit for the task. It
is impossible to say that they have undergone the preliminary intellectual
regeneration. If they had undergone an intellectual regeneration they would
neither delude themselves in the simple way of the untaught multitude nor
would they take advantage of the primitive ignorance of others as one sees
them doing. Notwithstanding the crumbling state of Hindu society these

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

95

leaders, will nevertheless unblushingly appeal to ideals of the past which
have in every way ceased to have any connection with the present; which
however suitable they might have been in the days of their origin have now
become a warning rather than a guide. They still have a mystic respect
for the earlier forms which make them disinclined — nay opposed to any
examination of the foundations of their Society. The Hindu masses are
of course incredibly heedless in the formation of their beliefs. But so are
the Hindu leaders. And what is worse is that these Hindu leaders become
filled with an illicit passion for their beliefs when any one proposes to rob
them of their companionship. The Mahatma is no exception. The Mahatma
appears not to believe in thinking. He prefers to follow the saints. Like a
conservative with his reverence for consecrated notions he is afraid that if
he once starts thinking, many ideals and institutions to which he clings wilt
be doomed. One must sympathize with him. For every act of independent
thinking puts some portion of apparently stable world in peril. But it is
equally true that dependence on saints cannot lead us to knew the truth.
The saints are after all only human beings and, as Lord Balfour said, “the
human mind is no more a truth finding apparatus than the snout of a pig”.
In so far as he does think, to me he really appears to be prostituting his
intelligence to find reasons for supporting this archaic social structure of the
Hindus. He is the most influential apologist of it and therefore the worst
enemy of the Hindus.

Unlike the Mahatma there are Hindu leaders who arc not content merely
to believe and follow. They dare to think, and act in accordance with the
result of their thinking. But unfortunately they are cither a dishonest lot
or an indifferent lot when it comes to the question of giving right guidance
to the mass of the people. Almost every Brahmin has transgressed the
rule of Caste. The number of Brahmins who sell shoes is far greater than
those who practise priesthood. Not only have the Brahmins given up their
ancestral calling of priesthood for trading but they have entered trades
which are prohibited to them by the Shastras. Yet how many Brahmins who
break Caste every day will preach against Caste and against the Shastras ?
For one honest Brahmin preaching against Caste and Shastras because his
practical instinct and moral conscience cannot support a conviction in them,
there are hundreds who break Caste and trample upon the Shastras every
day but who are the most fanatic upholders of the theory of Caste and the
sanctity of the Shastras. Why this duplicity ? Because they feel that if the
masses are emancipated from the yoke of Caste they would be a menace to
the power and prestige of the Brahmins as a class. The dishonesty of this
intellectual class who would deny the masses the fruits of their thinking is
a most disgraceful phenomenon.

The Hindus in the words of Mathew Arnold are “wandering between two
worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born”. What are they to do ? The

96

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mahatma to whom they appeal for guidance does not believe in thinking
and can therefore give no guidance which can be said to stand the test of
experience. The intellectual classes to whom the masses look for guidance are
either too dishonest or too indifferent to educate them in the right direction.
We are indeed witnesses to a great tragedy. In the face of this tragedy all
one can do is to lament and say — such be thy Leaders, O! Hindus.

PART II

ON LINGUISTIC STATES

3

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC
PROVINCE

Statement submitted
to

the Linguistic Provinces Commission

Published: 1948
Printed from the edition of 1948

NOTE

The figures quoted in this memorandum have been taken from various books
and pamphlets written by various writers on the subject of reconstituting
Maharashtra on a linguistic basis. I rely upon the writers for their accuracy.
Similarly, the map of Maharashtra attached to this Memorandum need not
be taken as accurate or complete. The idea is merely to give a picture of
how the Province when reconstituted will look like.

B. R. A.
14 - 10-48

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC

PROVINCE

PART I

THE PROBLEM OF LINGUISTIC PROVINCES

The question of Linguistic Provinces has not only led to a great deal
of controversy born out of party prejudices and party interests but it
has led to a difference of opinion as to the merits thereof. The points of
controversy relate to claims and counter-claims as between contiguous
Provinces to territories as well as to the terms of their inclusion. I shall
deal with them at a later stage in so far as they relate to the creation
of the Maharashtra Province. I shall first take up the question of the
merits of the proposal for Linguistic Provinces.

Purposes behind the demand for Linguistic Provinces

2. What is the purpose which lies behind the demand for Linguistic
Provinces ? The generality of those who advocate the creation of Linguistic
Provinces do so because they believe that the Provinces have different
languages and cultures. They should therefore have the fullest scope to
develop their languages and their cultures. In other words, the Provinces
have all the elements of a distinct nationality and they should be allowed
the freedom to grow to their fullest in nationhood.

Difficulties arising out of Linguistic Provinces

3. In discussing the question of creating such Linguistic Provinces it
would be very short-sighted to omit from one’s consideration the fact
that the structure of Government of India of the future is to be cast in
a dual form : (a) a Central Government and (b) a number of Provincial
Governments inextricably inter-linked and inter-woven in the discharge
of their respective Legislative, Executive and Administrative functions.
Before one could agree to the creation of Linguistic Provinces, one must,
therefore, consider the effects which Linguistic Provinces would have on
the working of the Central Government.

102

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

4. Among the many effects that may be envisaged, the following are obvious :

(1) Linguistic Provinces will result in creating as many nations as there
are groups with pride in their race, language and literature. The
Central Legislature will be a League of Nations and the Central
Executive may become a meeting of separate and solidified nations
filled with the consciousness of their being separate in culture and
therefore in interests. They may develop the mentality of political
insubordination, i.e., refusal to obey the majority or of staging walk-
outs. The development of such a mentality is not to be altogether
discounted. If such a mentality grows it may easily make the working
of the Central Government impossible.

(2) The creation of Linguistic Provinces would be fatal to the maintenance
of the necessary administrative relations between the Centre and the
Provinces. If each Province adopts its own language as its official
language the Central Government will have to correspond in as
many official languages as there are Linguistic Provinces. This must
be accepted as an impossible task. How great a deadlock Linguistic
Provinces will create in the working of the Governmental machine can
be better understood by studying the effects of Linguistic Provinces
on the Judiciary. In the new set-up, each Province will have a High
Court with a series of subordinate courts below it. At the apex of
these High Courts will be the Supreme Court with the right to
hear appeals against the decisions of the High Courts. On the basis
of Linguistic Provinces, Courts of each Province including its High
Court will conduct their proceedings in the language of the Province.
What is the Supreme Court to do when its jurisdiction is invoked
for rectifying a wrong done by the High Court ? The Supreme Court
will have to close down. For, if it is to function — every judge of
the Supreme Court — I am omitting for the moment the lawyers
practising therein — must know the language of every Province —
which it is impossible to provide for.

No one can contemplate such a situation with equanimity. It may lead to a
break-up of India. Instead of remaining united, India may end in becoming
Europe — faced with the prospect of chaos and disorder.

Advantages from Linguistic Provinces

5. While it is true that the proposal of Linguistic Provinces creates a
problem which goes to the very root of the matter — inasmuch as it affects the
unity of India — there can be no doubt that the reconstruction of Provinces
on linguistic basis has certain definite political advantages.

6. The main advantage of the scheme of Linguistic Provinces which
appeals to me quite strongly is that Linguistic Provinces would make

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

103

democracy work better than it would in mixed Provinces. A Linguistic
Province produces what democracy needs, namely, social homogeneity.
Now the homogeneity of a people depends upon their having a belief in a
common origin, in the possession of a common language and literature, in
their pride in a common historic tradition, community of social customs,
etc. is a proposition which no student of sociology can dispute. The
absence of a social homogeneity in a State creates a dangerous situation
especially where such a State is raised on a democratic structure. History
shows that democracy cannot work in a State where the population is
not homogeneous. In a heterogeneous population divided into groups
which are hostile and anti-social towards one another the working of
democracy is bound to give rise to cases of discrimination, neglect,
partiality, suppression of the interests of one group at the hands of another
group which happens to capture political power. The reason why in an
heterogeneous society, democracy cannot succeed is because power instead
of being used impartially and on merits and for the benefit of all is used
for the aggrandisement of one group and to the detriment of another.
On the other hand, a State which is homogeneous in its population can
work for the true ends of democracy, for there are no artificial barriers
or social antipathies which lead to the misuse of political power.

7. It follows that if democracy is to function properly the subjects of the
State must be so distributed as to form a single homogeneous group. The
constitution for the Provinces of India which is on the anvil is designed
for a democratic form of Government. It follows that each Province must
be homogeneous in its population if democracy in the Province is to be
successful. This is simply another way of saying that each Province must
be a linguistic unit if it is to be fitted to work a democratic constitution.
Herein lies the justification for Linguistic Provinces.

Can the creation of Linguistic Provinces be postponed ?

8. Can the solution of this problem be postponed ? In this connection,
I would like to place before the Commission the following considerations :

(i) There is nothing new in the demand for Linguistic Provinces.
Six Provinces (1) East Punjab, (2) United Provinces, (3) Bihar,
(4) West Bengal, (5) Assam and (6) Orissa already exist as
Linguistic Provinces. The Provinces which are clamouring for being
reconstituted on linguistic basis are : (1) Bombay, (2) Madras and
(3) Central Provinces. When the principle of Linguistic Provinces
is accepted in the case of six Provinces, the other Provinces which
are asking the same principle to be applied to them, cannot be
asked to wait indefinitely:

(ii) The situation in the Non-Linguistic Provinces has become
exasperating if not dangerous and is in no way different from the

104

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

situation as it existed in the old Turkish Empire or in the old
Austro-Hungarian Empire.

(iii) The demand for Linguistic Provinces is an explosive force of the
same character which was responsible for blowing up the old
Turkish Empire or Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is better not to
allow it to get too hot when it may become difficult to prevent an
explosion.

(iv) So long as the Provinces were not democratic in their constitutions
and so long as they did not possess the widest sovereign powers
which the new constitution gives them the urgency of Linguistic
Provinces was not very great. But with the new constitution, the
problem has become very urgent.

The solution of the difficulties

9. If the problem must be dealt with immediately what is to be the
solution ? As has already been pointed out, the solution must satisfy two
conditions. While accepting the principle of Linguistic Provinces it must
provide against the break-up of India’s unity. My solution of the problem
therefore is that, while accepting the demand for the re-constitution of
Provinces on linguistic basis, the constitution should provide that the
official language of every Province shall be the same as the official
language of the Central Government. It is only on that footing that I am
prepared to accept the demand for Linguistic Provinces.

10. I am aware of the fact that my suggestion runs counter to the
conception of Linguistic Provinces which is in vogue. It is that the
language of the Province shall be its official language. I have no objection
to Linguistic Provinces. But I have the strongest objection to the language
of the Province being made its official language where it happens to be
different from the official language of the Centre. My objection is based
on the following considerations :

(1) The idea of having a Linguistic Province has nothing to do with the
question of what should be its official language. By a Linguistic
Province, I mean a Province which by the social composition of
its population is homogeneous and therefore more suited for the
realization of those social ends which a democratic Government
must fulfil. In my view, a Linguistic Province has nothing to do with
the language of the Province. In the scheme of Linguistic Provinces,
language has necessarily to play its part. But its part can be limited
to the creation of the Province, i.e., for demarcation of the boundaries
of the Province. There is no categorical imperative in the scheme
of Linguistic Provinces which compels us to make the language of
the Province its official language. Nor is it necessary, for sustaining
the cultural unity of the Province, to make the language of the

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

105

Province its official language. For, the cultural unity of the Province,
which already exists, is capable of being sustained by factors other
than language such as common historic tradition, community of
social customs, etc. To sustain Provincial cultural unity which
already exists it does not require the use of the Provincial language
for official purposes. Fortunately for the Provincialists there
is no fear of a Maharashtrian not remaining a Maharashtrian
because he spoke any other language. So also there is no fear of
a Tamilian or an Andhra or a Bengali ceasing to be a Tamilian,
Andhra or Bengali if he spoke any other language than his own
mother- tongue.

(2) The out-and-out advocates of Linguistic Provinces would no doubt
protest that they have no intention of converting the Provinces
into separate nations. Their bona fides need not be doubted. At
the same time, it often happens that things do take a shape which
their authors never intended. It is therefore absolutely necessary
to take from the very beginning every step to prevent things
taking an evil shape in course of time. There is therefore nothing
wrong if the loc ening of the ties in one direction is accompanied
by their being tightened up in another direction.

(3) We must not allow the Provincial language to become its official
language even if it was natural that the Provincial language should
be the official language of the Province. There is no danger in
creating Linguistic Provinces. Danger lies in creating Linguistic
Provinces with the language of each Province as its official language.
The latter would lead to the creation of Provincial nationalities.
For the use of the Provincial languages as official languages would
lead Provincial cultures to be isolated crystalized, hardened and
solidified. It would be fatal to allow this to happen. To allow
this is to allow the Provinces to become independent nations,
separate in everything and thus open the road to the ruination of
United India. In Linguistic Provinces without the language of the
Province being made its official language the Provincial culture
would remain fluid with a channel open for give and take. Under
no circumstances, we must allow the Linguistic Provinces to make
their Provincial languages their official languages.

11. The imposition of an All-India official language on a Linguistic
Province which may happen to be different from the language of the
Province cannot come in the way of maintaining Provincial culture. Official
language will be used only in the field occupied by Government. The non-
official field or what may be the purely cultural field will still remain
open to the Provincial language to play its part. There may be a healthy
competition between the official and non-official language. One may try to

106

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

oust the other. If the official language succeeds in ousting the non-official
language from the cultural field, nothing like it. If it fails, there cannot
be much harm. Such a position cannot be said to be intolerable. It is no
more intolerable than the present position in which we have English as the
official language and the Provincial language as its non-official language.
The only difference is that the official language will not be English but
some other.

The requirements of a satisfactory solution

12. I am aware of the fact that my solution is not an ideal solution. It
makes working of the constitution in the Provinces on democratic lines
possible. But it does not make possible the democratic working of the
constitution at the Centre. That is because mere linguistic unity, i.e., the
facility to speak a common language does not ensure homogeneity which
is the result of many other factors. As stated before, the representatives
selected by the Provinces to the Central Legislature will remain what they
are, namely, Bengalis, Tamilians, Andhras, Maharashtrians, etc., even
though they may be speaking the official language of the Centre and not
their mother-tongue. But an ideal solution which can be put into effect
immediately, I cannot see. We must be content with the next best. The only
thing we must be sure about is that the solution we adopt immediately
must satisfy two conditions :

(i) It must be the very next best to the ideal; and

(ii) It must be capable of developing itself into the ideal.

Judged in the light of these considerations, I venture to say that the
solution which I have suggested satisfies these two conditions.

PART II

WILL MAHARASHTRA BE A VIABLE PROVINCE ?

Tests of Viability

13. Coming to the specific question of Maharashtra Province it is necessary
to be satisfied that it will be a viable Province. For being declared a viable
Province, a Province must satisfy certain tests. It must be of a certain size,
it must have a certain volume of population and a commensurate amount
of revenue. A Province must not only be self-supporting — which any
Province can be by choosing to live on a lower plane — but it must have
sufficient revenue to provide for a minimum standard of administration
required by efficiency and the needs of social welfare.

Is Maharashtra Viable ?

14. Does the Province of Maharashtra satisfy these tests ? The following
are the figures which show the size and population of the Maharashtra
Province as constituted on a linguistic basis :

Territory Area in Total Total Percentage of

square population Marathi-speaking Marathi-

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

bB g
£ 'rt

cj O

rs i — i

Ctf r-

a i. p

co

o

a

I <D

' p
o

03 s

a

o

a

1 a

GO

o

o

t—H

io

o'

o

lO

o

CM

GO

CM

t>"

03

a

o

PQ

0

MP

M-l

o

>3

Q s

> ^

0 s

> 0

H Pm

CD

O

o

CO

CO*'

°o

co"

lO

o

CD

o"

(M

o"

LO

CD

GO

CD"

CO

M

03

Ml

0

pp

P

o3

Pa

d

<4H

o

co

4-3

0

’fi

4^

co

Q

4-3

PP

be

H

o

o

co"

CO

to

CO

CO

<N

CO

o'

o

GO

O

Eh

o

t>

o

o

t>

o'

CM

t>

o

(M

o'

(N

t>"

(N

0

P

0

*co

0

Mi

Ph

o3

P2

O

PQ

g

pp

03

0

CD

O

o

co

o'

03

(N

CO

CM

t>

(M

oT

<N

CD

CD

<N

(N

T3

o3

rD 3

03

Mi

0

ffi

* 4-1

o

CO

4^

0

*M

4-3

CO

Q

be

g

3

o3

0

PP

CO

o3 0

c 3 rt

§ 33

CD

O

CO

O

o

co

o'

CM

o

o

o

o'

00

to"

CO

ID

03

O

O

CO

CO

o

o

CO

<N

(N

GO

00

00

co"

CO

CD"

o

Mi

03

4^

CO

03

PQ

* 4-1

o

0

4^

o3

4 J

m

o

o

co

<N

T— I

CD

t>

CD

CD

co"

OD

i — i

GO

O

O

Eh

GO

CD

t>

O

o

t>

to"

00

(M

to

o

CD

°°.

of

CD

CD

co"

CO

o

Eh

T 3

P

o3

Mi

0

107

108

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Area and population of Maharashtra

15. The above table gives figures for the Maharashtra Province in its two
forms (1) abridged and (2) unabridged. In its unabridged form which means
if all the area occupied by the Marathi-speaking people was constituted
in one single Province the area and the population of Maharashtra will
be 1,33,466 square miles with a population of 2,15,85,700. In its abridged
form which means that if the area and population of the Marathi-speaking
people comprised within the States was for the moment omitted, even then
the proposed Maharashtra Province would comprise an area of 84,151
square miles with a population of 1,54,33,400.

Revenue of Maharashtra

16. Turning to the revenue side of the Province, it has been estimated
that the total annual revenue at the existing rate of taxation which
will accrue to the abridged Maharashtra Province will be approximately
Rs. 25,61,51,000.

Comparison of Maharashtra with other Provinces

17. Some comparisons are necessary to get an idea if a Province of this
size, with this population and with so much revenue will be viable. For
this, I give below figures of the first or the biggest and the forty-seventh or
the smallest states within the U.S.A. in order of their size and population :

States

Area in
square miles

1st Texas

2,67,339

47th Delaware

2,057

States

Population

1st New York

1,26,32,890

47th Wyoming

2,57,108

18. It is obvious that Maharashtra whether one

takes its abridged

edition or the unabridged edition of it will be several times bigger than
Delaware which is the smallest State in U.S.A. in point of area and also
several times bigger than New York which is the biggest state in U.S.A.
in point of population.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 109

19. Comparison of Maharashtra with the existing and prospective
Linguistic Provinces of India may also be useful. Their position in point of
area, population and revenue is as follows :

Province

Area in
sq. miles

Population

Annual

Revenue

Rs.

Existing Linguistic Province-

United Provinces

106,247

5,50,20,617

32,65,08,000

Bihar

69,745

3,63,40,151

16,26,78,000

Orissa

32,198

82,28,544

4,60,62,000

New Linguistic Provinces —

Andhra

70,000

1,90,00,000

Karnatak

25,000

45,00,000

Kerala

6,000

35,00,000

These figures when compared with the figures for Maharashtra leave no
doubt that Maharashtra will not merely be a viable Province but a strong
Province in point of area, population and revenue.

PART III

SHOULD THE MAHARASHTRA PROVINCE BE
FEDERAL OR UNITARY ?

20. I will now turn to what are known to be points on which there is
controversy. There is no controversy regarding the unification of Maharashtra
into one Province. The controversy relates to the way it should be brought
about. One view is that the new Maharashtra Province should be a unitary
Province, with a single legislature and a single executive. The other view
is that Maharashtra should be a Federation of two sub-Provinces, one
sub-Province to consist of the Marathi-speaking districts of the Bombay
Presidency and the other of the Marathi-speaking districts of the present
Province of the Central Provinces and Berar. The idea of creating sub-
Provinces has originated from the spokesmen of the Marathi-speaking districts
of Central Provinces and Berar. I am satisfied that it is only the wish of
a few high-caste politicians who feel that in a unified Maharashtra their
political careers will come to an end. It has no backing from the people of
Central Provinces and Berar. I would not have referred to this point but
for the fact that it gives me an opportunity to enunciate what I regard as
a very vital principal. When it is decided to create a Linguistic Province,
I am definitely of opinion that all areas which are contiguous and which
speak the same language should be forced to come into it. There should
be no room for choice nor for self-determination. Every attempt must be

110

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

made to create larger provincial units. Smaller provincial units will be a
perpetual burden in normal times and a source of weakness in an emergency.
Such a situation must be avoided. That is why I insist that all parts of
Maharashtra should be merged together in a single province.

PART IV

MAHARASHTRA AND THE CITY OF BOMBAY
Controversy over Bombay

21. Should the City of Bombay be included in Maharashtra or not is
another point over which there has been a controversy. A meeting was held in
Bombay in the building of the Indian Merchants Chamber. The meeting was
attended by no more than sixty. With the exception of one Indian- Christian
it was attended by only Gujarathi-speaking merchants and industrialists.
Although it was small and sectional meeting, its proceedings were flashed
on the front page of every important newspaper in India and the Times of
India was so impressed by its importance that it wrote an editorial which
while mildly castigating the vituperative tone which the speakers at the
meeting adopted against the Maharashtrians, supported the resolutions
passed at the meeting regarding the future of Bombay. This proves what
truth there is in the reply given by Lord Birkenhead to the Irish Leader,
Mr. Redmond, in the course of the Irish controversy when he said that there
are cases where a minority is a majority.

My memorandum would be woefully incomplete if I omitted to deal with
the pros and cons of this controversy. This is because of two reasons : In
the first place, the meeting has been recognized to be very important and
secondly because the resolutions of the meeting have been supported by
eminent University Professors.

Proposals regarding Bombay

22. The meeting passed the following resolutions :

(1) That the question of the creation of Linguistic Provinces should be
postponed ; or

(2) That if it is not postponed, Bombay City should be constituted into
a separate Province.

There is a third suggestion, namely, that Konkan should be constituted
into a separate Province with Bombay as its capital. There is hardly any
support to this plan. There is therefore no necessity to discuss it.

Decision regarding Bombay must be made now

23. I have no complaint against that part of the Resolution which
says the question of Linguistic Provinces be postponed provided the main
question namely whether Bombay should or should not be included in
Maharashtra is settled. If this question was settled it did not matter if it

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

111

took five or ten years to give effect to the Settlement. But the resolution is
only an escapism. It does not settle the issue. It only adjourns the controversy.
The main question must therefore be tackled right now.

Ground for the exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra

24. The arguments urged in favour of separating Bombay from Maharashtra
are set out below :

(1) Bombay was never a part of Maharashtra. 1

(2) Bombay was never a part of the Maratha Empire. 2

(3) The Marathi-speaking people do not form a majority of the population
of the City of Bombay. 3

(4) Gujarathis have been old residents of Bombay. 4

(5) Bombay is a trade centre for vast areas outside Maharashtra.
Therefore, Bombay cannot be claimed by Maharashtra. It belongs
to the whole of India. 5

(6) It is the Gujarathi-speaking people of Bombay who have built up the
trade and industry of Bombay. The Maharashtrians have been only
clerks and coolies. It would be wrong to place the owners of trade
and industry under the political dominance of the working classes
who form the bulk of Maharashtrians. 6

(7) Maharashtra wants Bombay to be included in Maharashtra because
it wants to live on the surplus of Bombay. 7

(8) A multi-lingual State is better. It is not so fatal to the liberty of
smaller people. 8

(9) Regrouping of Provinces should be on rational lines and not on
national lines. 9

Burden of Proof

25. On an examination of these points it is obvious that points (1) and
(2) are preliminary in the sense that they help us to decide on whom rests
the burden of proof. If it is proved that Bombay is part of Maharashtra,
then the burden of proof for separating it from Maharashtra must fall upon
those who urge that it should be separated and not upon those who claim
that it should remain part of Maharashtra. I will therefore deal with these
two points first.

1. Prof. Gheewala — Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948, and Prof. Moraes — Free Press Journal,
September 18, 1948.

2. Ibid.

3. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal, September 21, 1948.

4. Prof. Gheewala, Free Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948.

5. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal, September 11, 1948.

6. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Bombay Chronicle.

7. Prof. C. N. Vakil, at the meeting of India Merchants Chamber.

8. Prof. Dantwala, Free Press Journal, September 1, 1948.

9. Prof. Gheewala, Free Press Journal, September 11, 1948.

112

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Points (1) and (2)

Verdict of History

26. These points can be considered both in the light of history as well
as of geography. I am, however, convinced that history cannot help us to
decide the issue. In the first place, how far back must we go to find the
data on which to base our conclusion. It is obvious that the history of the
ancient past would be of no use to us in this connection. What could be
of use to us is the past of the present. One may go further and question
any reliance being placed upon such a past of the present for drawing
any conclusion that can have a bearing on the issue before us. Most of
the contacts between people during historical times have been between
conquerors and conquered. This is true of India as well as of Europe. But
the results of such contacts have been quite different in Europe and in India.
In Europe such contacts have produced assimilation of the conflicting social
elements. Frequent inter-marriages have confounded the original stocks.
One language, either the most useful or the most commonly spoken, has
tended to supplant the other. If one civilization is superior to the others
in the same country it has automatically supplanted them. This natural
tendency towards assimilation which we see in Europe is so strong that
steps have to be taken to counteract it. What is the tendency in India ? It
is definitely against assimilation. The Musalmans conquered Hindus. But
the Musalmans remained Musalmans and the Hindus remained Hindus.
The Gujarathis were conquered by Maharashtrians and were ruled by them
for some years. What effect has it produced upon the Gujarathis ? Nothing.
Gujarathis have remained Gujarathis and Maharashtrians have remained
Maharashtrians. The Chalukyas conquered Maharashtrians and so did the
Shilahars. But there was no assimilation between them. The Shilahars and
Chalukyas remained what they were and so did the Maharashtrians. This
being the case, what help can Indian History give in the decision of the
issue ? The history of internal upheavals as well as of external aggressions
has been nothing more than a passing show. Conquest means nothing and
proves nothing.

Verdict of Geography

27. Let us now turn to geography and ask for its verdict. It seems to
be a better witness than history. For this purpose one must consider the
location of Bombay in relation to the Province of Maharashtra. The Province
of Maharashtra once it is created will be triangular in shape. One side of
this triangle is formed by the Western Coast Line of India between Daman
in the North and Karwar in the South. The City of Bombay lies in between
Daman and Karwar. The Province of Gujarat starts from Daman and
spreads northwards. The Kanada Province starts from Karwar and spreads
southwards. It is about 85 miles South of Daman which is the starting point
of Gujarat, and 250 miles North of Karwar, which is the starting point of

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

113

Karnatak Province. If the unbroken territory between Daman and Karwar is
geographically part of Maharashtra, how could Bombay be held not to be a
part of Maharashtra ? This is an incontrovertible fact of nature. Geography
has made Bombay part of Maharashtra. Let those who want to challenge
the fact of nature do so. To an unbiassed mind it is conclusive proof that
Bombay belongs to Maharashtra.

Bombay and the Maratha Empire

28. That the Marathas did not care to make it a part of their Empire
does in no way affect the validity of the conclusion drawn from geography.
That the Marathas did not care to conquer it does not prove that Bombay
is not a part of Maharashtra. It only means that the Maratha power was a
land power and did not therefore care to spend its energy in the conquest
of a seaport.

29. With the decision on Points (1) and (2), the burden must now shift on
those who contended that Bombay should not be included in Maharashtra.
Have they discharged the burden ? This leads to the consideration of other
points.

Point (3)

Marathi-speaking population — majority or minority

30. There is no unanimity on this question. Prof. Gadgil speaking for
the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra asserts that the Marathi-speaking
population of Bombay according to the census of 1941 is 51 per cent.
Speaking against the inclusion of Bombay, Prof. Gheewala says that the
Marathi-speaking population of Bombay is 41 per cent. Prof. Vakil has
brought it down to 39 per cent, which he regards as a very liberal estimate.
I have not had time to check up these figures and I understand that the
Census of Bombay does not render much help in arriving at a precise figure.
However, if one reads the reasons assigned by Prof. Vakil, one would find
his conclusion to be speculative if not wishful thinking. But assuming that
the figures given by Prof. Vakil are correct, what of it ? What conclusion
can be drawn from it ? Does it defeat the claim of Maharashtra to include
Bombay ? Ever since the British became the masters of India, India has been
one country with a right to free movement from place to place. If people
from all parts of India were allowed to come to Bombay and settle there,
why should the Maharashtrians suffer ? It is not their fault. The present
state of the population cannot therefore be a ground for excluding Bombay
from Maharashtra.

Point (4)

Are Gujarathis Natives of Bombay ?

31. Let us however fully consider the question. Are the Gujarathis
natives of Bombay ? If they are not, how did they come to Bombay ? What

114

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

is the source of their wealth ? No Gujarathi would claim that the Gujarathis
are the natives of Bombay. If they are not the natives of Bombay, how
did they come to Bombay ? Like the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch
and the English on adventures to fight their way through and willing to
take any risks? The answers which history gives to these questions are
quite clear. The Gujarathis did not come to Bombay voluntarily. They
were brought to Bombay by the officers of the East India Company to
serve as commercial Adatias or go-betweens. They were brought because
the East India Company’s officers who had their first factory in Surat
had got used to Surti Banias as their go-betweens in carrying on their
trade. This explains the entry of Gujarathis in Bombay. Secondly, the
Gujarathis did not come to Bombay to trade on the basis of free and
equal competition with other traders. They came as privileged persons
with certain trading rights given to them exclusively by the East India
Company. Their importation into Bombay was considered for the first
time in the year 1671 by Governor Aungier. This fact is referred to in
the Gazetteer of Bombay Town and Island, Vol. I in the following terms : 10

“Another scheme for the advantage of Bombay in which Governor
Aungier interested himself was the settlement of Surat Banias in
Bombay. It appears that the Mahajan or committee of the Surat Bania
community desired the assurance of certain privileges before risking the
move to Bombay and that the company had given a general approval to
the Mahajan’s proposal. On the 10th January the Surat Council wrote
to the Company. The Mahajan or Chief Council of the Banias have been
much satisfied with the answer which you were pleased to give to their
petition sent you by the ship Samson touching their privileges in Bombay.

It seems they have determined once more to trouble Your Honours with
a letter which they have ordered your broker Bhimji Parakh to write,
representing their desires that the said privileges may be confirmed to
them under your great seal, for which their request they give you their
reason and ground in their own letter which they have sent us to be
transmitted to you and now goes in your packet by ship Falcon. The
argument they use to strengthen their request seems to have some weight.

They say the Honourable Company are perpetual and their ordinances
always of force, but their Presidents and Councils are mutable, and the
succeeding Presidents and Councils, do alter often what their predecessors
have granted on which score they hope your Honours will be pleased to
grant their petition. As to our judgments hereon, we humbly offer that we
cannot see any detriment can accrue to you thereby, rather a considerable
advantage may follow; and as to the latitude and extent of what privileges
you shall afford them, it must be totally referred to your own wisdoms
howsoever you shall please to determine in this matter. We judge

10. Bombay Gazetteer , I, pp. 46-47.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

115

if your Honours would please to favour them with a line in answer to their
letter, it would be a great comfort to them and no disadvantage to your interest.”

32. What were the privileges which the Gujarathi Banias had asked
for from the East India Company ? The following petition by one Nima
Parakh, an eminent Bania belonging to the City of Diu, gives some idea
of what they were

“That the Honourable Company shall allot him so much ground in or
near the present, town free of rent as shall be judged necessary to build
a house or warehouse thereon.

“2. That he with the Brahmans of Vers (Gors or priests) of his caste shall
enjoy the free exercise of their religion within their own houses without the
molestation of any person whatsoever ; that no Englishman, Portuguese, or
other Christian nor Muhammadan shall be permitted to live within their
compound or offer to kill any living creature there, or do the least injury
or indignity to them, and if any shall presume to offend them within the
limits of their said compound, upon their complaint to the Governor (at
Surat), or Deputy Governor (at Bombay), the offenders shall be exemplarily
punished ; that they shall have liberty to burn their dead according to their
custom, also to use their ceremonies at their weddings ; and that none of
their profession of what age, sex or condition whatever they be, shall be
forced to turn Christians, nor to carry burthens against their wills.

“3. That he and his family shall be free from all duties of watch and
ward, or any charge and duty depending thereon ; that neither the Company
nor the Governor, Deputy Governor or Council, or any other person, shall
on any pretence whatsoever force them to lend money for public or private
account or use any indirect.

“4. That in case there falls out any difference or suit in law between
him or his vakil or attorneys or the Banias of his caste, and any other
persons remaining on the island, the Governor or Deputy Governor shall
not suffer him or them to be publicly arrested dishonoured or carried to
prison, without first giving him due notice of the cause depending, that he
or they may cause justice to be done in an honest and amicable way and
in case any difference happen between him or his attorney and any Bania
of their own caste, they may have liberty to decide it among themselves
without being forced to go to law.”

“5. That he shall have liberty of trade in his own ships and vessels to
what port he pleases, and come in and go out when he thinks good, without
paying anchorage, having first given the Governor or Deputy Governor or
customer notice and taken their consent thereunto.

11. Bombay Gazetteer , Vol. I, pp. 74-76.

116

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

“6. That in case he brings any goods on shore more than he can sell on
the island within the space of 12 months, he shall have liberty to transport
them to what port he pleases, without paying custom for exportation.

“7. That in case any person be indebted to him, and also to other Banias,
and be not able to pay all his debts, his right may be preferred before
other Banias.

“8. That in case of war or any other danger which may succeed, he
shall have a warehouse in the castle to secure his goods, treasure, and
family therein.

“9. That he or any of his family shall have liberty of egress and regress to
and from the fort or residence of the Governor or Deputy Governor; that they
shall be received with civil respect and be permitted to sit down according
to their qualities; that they shall freely use coaches, horses or palanquins
and quitasols (that is barsums or umbrellas) for their convenience without
any disturbances ; that their servants may wear swords and daggers, shall
not be abused, beaten or imprisoned except they offend, and that in case
of any of his kindred or friends shall come to visit him or them from any
other ports, they shall be used with civility and respect.

“10. That he and his assigns shall have liberty to sell and buy coconuts,
betelnuts, pan or betel-leaves, and any other commodity not rented out
without any molestation on the island.”

33. How this petition of Nima Parakh was disposed of can be seen
from the reply of the Deputy Governor of Bombay dated 3rd April, 1677,
which was in the following terms ;

“According to order we have considered the articles of Nima Parakh
Bania, which if we rightly understand we do not apprehend any prejudice
in their concession the most of them being what the meanest enjoy.

“The first is very easy, the Company having vast ground enough, and
we daily do the same to Banias and others who come to inhabit here. As
to the second, the free exercise of religion is permitted to all with the
use of their ceremonies at weddings and feast, the Banias always burning
their dead without molestation. Neither do we permit any person to kill
anything near the Banias who all live by themselves, much less can any
person presume to enter into anybody’s house or compound without the
owner’s license ; and, for forcing people to turn Christian against their
wills, the whole world will vindicate us ; neither are any persons forced
to carry burdens against their wills. No Bania, Brahman, Moor, or such
man is obliged to watch or ward or other duty, but if any person buys
an oart or warge (vada) he is bound on every alarm to send a musquiter.
But if he possesses no land no duty is exacted, so the articles may be

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

117

granted to Nima, and when he goes about to buy any land he may be
acquainted with that small incumbrance thereon.

“The 4th article is indeed a privilege but no more than Girdhar, the
Moody and some others have, which does not in the least exempt them
from the hands of the law or justice, but does only ask that justice be
done respectfully, which he need not doubt of, and for matter of differences
among themselves there is already his Honour’s patent authorising them
to decide such things.

“As to the 5th, the great anchorage of a rupee per ton is wholly taken
off. There remains only a small one of a rupee for every 100 tons, which is
so inconsiderable a matter that we do not believe we will stick at it. If he
does, it will amount but to a small matter being only for his own vessels
that the Company may easily allow it.

“The 6th if we rightly apprehend it, is no more than what all people
enjoy, who are so far from paying custom at exportation of their own goods
that they pay none for what goods they buy. But if he intends his goods
must pay no custom at landing nor none at exportation of what he cannot
sell, it will be so great a loss to the Company, they having farmed out
the customs for two years, that the benefit of his settling here, will, we
believe, not countervail it, till it comes into the Company’s hands again.

“As to the 7th, our law is such that if a person be indebted to several
men, whosoever gets a judgment first in Court will be paid his full debt, but
no man can be aggrieved at that, nor can any creditor have any pretence
to what is once paid, and when judgment is given it is already paid in law,
so that he is no longer proprietor of it. But when a person is indebted to
two men and the first sues him and upon that the second comes in and
sues him too, with what justice can we pay all the debtor’s estate to the
second creditor. Only of this he may be assured that all justice shall be
done him with speed according to our law and the party forced to pay the
full debt, if able, and lie in prison for the rest till he pleases to release
him, which we suppose may well content him.

“As to the 8th, in case of war all persons of quality have liberty to repair
to the castle and secure their money and other things of value. Nor that
I suppose he intends to fill up the castle with gurf (coarse) goods ; but for
money, jewels household stuff, cloth goods of value, that take up small
room, he may bring what he pleases and may have a warehouse apart
allotted for himself and family.

“The 9th and 10th we may join together, they being only to fill up the
number. They are plain optics to show the nature of those they live under
which, when they have experimented our Government, themselves will
laugh at us, enjoying more freedom than the very articles demand, for

118

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the meanest person is never denied egress and regress upon respectful notice
given and for horses and coaches and the like he may keep as many as he
pleases and his servants be permitted to wear what arms they please, a thing
common to all. Nothing is more promoted by us than the free liberty for buying
and selling which is the load-stone of trade.

“That last thing he asked of having 10 mans of tobacco free of all duties
is the most difficult thing of all, for the farmers will ask a vast deal to grant
such a licence, it being a very great profit they make in the sale of 10 mans,
so that we know not which way this article can be condescended to, but in this
your Honours can judge better than us.” 12

34. In reply on the 26th April, the Surat Council wrote : 13 “We observe
your answer touching the articles proposed by Nima Parakh Bania in order
to his settlement on Bombay. When we come again to treat with him thereon,
we hope so to moderate the affair that the island shall not receive any the
least prejudice thereby and we do not question but wholly to put him by
his request to 10 mans of tobacco which he would annually receive or bring
on the island free of all duties.”

Point (5)

Bombay — an Emporium of India

35. That Bombay is an emporium for the whole of India may be admitted.
But it is difficult to understand how it can be said that because of this,
Maharashtra cannot claim Bombay. Every port serves a much larger area
than the country to which it belongs. No one, on that account, can say
the country in which the port is situated cannot claim it as a part of its
territory. Switzerland has no port. It uses either German, Italian or French
Ports. Can the Swiss therefore deny the right of Germany, Italy or France,
the territorial rights of their ports. Why then should Maharashtrians be
denied the right to claim Bombay merely because it serves as a port for
Provinces other than Maharashtra ? It would be different if the Province of
Maharashtra were to get a right to close the Port to Non-Maharashtrians.
Under the constitution, it will not have that right. Consequently, the inclusion
of Bombay in Maharashtra will not affect the right of non-Maharashtrians
to use the port as before.

Point (6)

Gujarathis — owners of Trade and Industry of Bombay

36. It may be granted that the Gujarathis have a monopoly of trade.
But, as has already been pointed out, this monopoly, they have been able
to establish because of the profits they were able to make which were the
result of the privileges given to them by the East India Company on their

12. This is probably new demand made by Nima Parakh.

13. Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, p. 77.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

119

settlement in Bombay. Who built up the trade and industry of Bombay
is a matter for which no very great research is necessary. There is no
foundation in fact for the statement that the trade and industry of
Bombay was built up by Gujarathis. It was built up by Europeans and
not by Gujarathis. Those who assert that it is the Gujarathis who did it
should consult the Times of India Directory before making such a claim.
The Gujarathis have been just merchants which is quite a different thing
from being industrialists.

37. Once it is established that Bombay belonged to Maharashtra the claim
of Maharashtra to include Bombay cannot be defeated by the argument
that the trade and industry of Bombay is owned by the Gujarathis. The
claim of mortgagor to his land cannot be defeated by the mortgagee on
the ground that the mortgagee has built up permanent structures on the
land. The Gujarathis assuming they have built up the trade and industry
of Bombay are in no better position than a mortgagee is.

38. But who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay seems to
me quite irrelevant to the decision of the issue whether Bombay should or
should not be included in Maharashtra. This argument based on monopoly
of trade and industry is really a political argument. It means that the
owners may rule the workers but the workers must not be allowed to
rule the owners. Those who use this argument do not seem to know what
they are up against. The one thing they are up against is whether this
argument is to be confined only to the City of Bombay or whether it is
to have a general application.

39. There is no reason why it should not have a general application.
For just as in Bombay City society is divided into owners and workers
or into capitalists and wage-earners, such also is the case of society in
Gujarat or for the matter of that in every province of India. If the owners
and capitalists of Bombay are to be protected by the exclusion of Bombay
from Maharashtra because Maharashtrians belong to the working classes,
what is the method they suggest for protecting the capitalists of Gujarat
from the working classes of Gujarat. Those Gujarathi Professors like Vakils
and Dantwalas who are searching their brains to supply arguments to
the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay have not thought of finding ways
and means for protecting the Gujarathi capitalists of Gujarat against
the working classes of Gujarat. The only remedy they can suggest is the
abandonment of adult suffrage. That is the only way by which they can
protect the capitalists if they are out to protect capitalists in general and
not the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay in particular.

40. There is however one argument which the Professors could urge. It is
that the Maharashtrians being in a majority would discriminate against the
Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay if Bombay was included in Maharashtra.

120

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

One could appreciate such an argument. But those who like to use this
argument must remember two things :

(i) That Maharashtra is not the only place in which such a situation
can arise. It may arise in any province. I like to refer to Bihar. In
Bihar the land in which coal is found belongs to the people of Bihar.
But the coal-owners are Gujarathis, Kathiawaris or Europeans.
Is there no possibility of Biharis making a discrimination against
Gujarathi and Kathiawari coal-owners ? Are the coalfields of Bihar
to be excluded from the Province of Bihar and constituted into
a separate Province in the interest of Kathiawari and Gujarathi
coal-owners ?

(ii) The constitution of India has noted the possibility of discrimination
being made against a minority and has made more than ample
provision for preventing it. There are the fundamental rights.
There are the provisions against discrimination; there are the
provisions of payment of compensation, and there are the High
Courts with the inherent rights to issue high prerogative writs both
against individuals and Governments to stop any harm, injustice
or harassment being done to any citizen. What more protection do
the Gujarathi traders and industrialists of Bombay want against
the possibility of discrimination ?

Point (7)

Maharashtra’s eye on Bombay’s surplus

41. Before accusing Maharashtrians of having an eye on the surplus
of Bombay it must be proved that Bombay has a surplus. What appears
as surplus is due really to bad accounting. It is bad accounting where
expenditure on overhead charges such as (1) the Governor and his
establishment, (2) the Ministers and their establishments, (3) the
Legislature and the expenditure thereon, (4) Judiciary, (5) Police and (6)
Provincial establishments such as those of the Commissioners of Police
and Directors of Public Instruction is not being taken into account. I
doubt very much if on the existing basis of taxation, Bombay will have
any surplus if expenditure on these items is charged to Bombay. It is a
fallacy to charge all such expenditure to Maharashtra and exempt Bombay
from it and then argue that Bombay has a surplus.

42. The statement that the Maharashtrians want Bombay because they
want to live on the surplus revenue of Bombay, besides being wrong in
fact raises a question of motive. I do not know if the Maharashtrians are
actuated by any such motive. They are not a commercial community. Unlike
other communities, the Maharashtrians have no nose for money, and I am
one of these who believe that it is one of their greatest virtues. Money has
never been their god. It is no part of their culture. That is why they have

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

121

allowed all other communities coming from outside Maharashtra to
monopolize the trade and industry of Maharashtra. But as I have shown
there is no surplus and no question of Maharashtrians casting their eyes
on it.

43. But supposing such a motive in the minds of the Maharashtrians,
what is wrong in it ? It is quite open to Maharashtrians to contend that
they have a greater claim on Bombay’s surplus because they have played
and they will continue to play a greater part in supplying labour for the
building up of the trade and industry of Bombay more than the people
from other Provinces have done or likely to do. It would be difficult for
any economist with any reputation to save who could deny that labour
has as much claim on the wealth produced as capital if not more.

44. Secondly, the surplus from Bombay is not consumed by Maharashtra
alone but is consumed by the whole of India. The proceeds of the Income-
tax, Super-tax, etc. which Bombay pays to the Central Government are
all spent by the Central Government for all-India purposes and is shared
by all other Provinces. To Prof. Vakil it does not matter if the surplus
of Bombay is eaten up by United Provinces, Bihar, Assam, Orissa, West
Bengal, East Punjab and Madras. What he objects to is Maharashtra
getting any part of it. This is not an argument. It is only an exhibition
of his hatred for Maharashtrians.

45. Granting that Bombay was made into a separate Province, what
I don’t understand is how Prof. Vakil is going to prevent Maharashtra
from getting share of Bombay surplus revenue. Even if Bombay is made
separate Province, Bombay will have to pay income-tax, super-tax, etc.
and surely Maharashtra will get a part of the revenue paid by Bombay
to the Centre either directly or indirectly. As I have said the argument
has in it more malice than substance.

Points (8) and (9)

General arguments against the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra

46. I will now turn to the Points (8) and (9) which have been urged by
Professors Dantwala and Gheewala. Their arguments strike at the very root
of the principle of Linguistic Provinces. As such I should have dealt with
them in Part I of this Memorandum. But as the aim of their argument is
to exclude Bombay from being included in Maharashtra, I have thought
it proper to deal with them in this Part of the Memorandum as they
are really arguments against the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra.

47. The sum total of the arguments of the two Professors is that
Linguistic Provinces are bad. This cry against Linguistic Provinces is too
late. Since when two Professors having been holding these views is not
known. Are they opposed to Gujarat being reconstituted on Linguistic

122

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Provinces also has not been made clear by them. Or, is it that they
believed in the principle of Linguistic Provinces but hurried to disavow
it when they realized that the admission of the principle involves the
surrender of Bombay to Maharashtra. It is perhaps one of these cases
where a person not finding argument limited to his purpose is forced to
resort to an argument which proves more than he is anxious to allow.
I am, however, prepared to examine the substance of their argument.

48. Prof. Dantwala relies upon Lord Acton and quotes the following
passage from his Essay on Nationality printed in his well-known book
The History of Freedom and Other Essays in support of his own view
against Linguistic Provinces. The quotation reads as follows :

“The combination of various nations in one State is a necessary condition
of civilized life as the combination of men in society.”

49. I am sorry to say that this quotation completely misrepresents
Lord Acton. The quotation is only a few opening lines of a big passage.
The full passage reads as follows :

“The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary a condition
of civilized life as the combination of men in society. Inferior races are raised
by living in political union with races intellectually superior. Exhausting and
decaying nations are revived by the contact of younger vitality. Nations in
which the elements of organization and the capacity for Government have
been lost, either through the demoralizing influence of despotism or the
disintegrating action of democracy, are restored and educated a new under
the discipline of a stronger and less corrupted race. This fertilizing and
regenerating process can only be obtained by living under one Government.

It is in the cauldron of the State that the fusion takes place by which the
vigour, the knowledge and the capacity of one portion of mankind may be
communicated to another.”

50. Why Prof. Dantwala left out the rest of the passage, it is difficult to
understand. I am not suggesting that it is a deliberate case of suppresio
veri and suggestio falsi. The fact is that it does misrepresent Lord Acton.
Why has the Professor relied upon this passage, I do not understand. It
is quite obvious that if the inferior races are placed in common with the
superior races, the inferior races may improve. But the question is, who is
inferior or who is superior. Are the Gujarathis inferior to Maharashtrians?
Or are the Maharashtrians inferior to Gujarathis ? Secondly, what is the
channel of cummunion between Gujarathis and Maharashtrians which
can assure the fusion of the two ? Prof. Dantwala has not considered
the question. He found a sentence in Lord Acton’s Essay and jumped at
it for he could find nothing else to support his case. The point is that
there is nothing in the passage which has any relevance to the principle
involved in the question of Linguistic Province.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

123

51. So much for Prof. Dantwala’s arguments. I will now examine
Prof. Gheewala’s arguments. Prof. Gheewala also relies on Lord Acton.
He quotes a portion of a passage from Lord Acton’s Essay on Nationality.
I reproduce below the passage in full :

“The greatest adversary of the rights of nationality is the modern theory
of nationality. By making the State and the nation commensurate with
each other in theory, it reduces practically to a subject condition all other
nationalities that may be within the boundary. It cannot admit them to an
equality with the ruling nation which constitutes the State, because the
State would then cease to be national, which would be a contradiction of
the principle of its existence. According, therefore, to the degree of humanity
and civilization in that dominant body which claims all the rights of the
community, the inferior races are exterminated, or reduced to servitude, or
outlawed, or put in a condition of dependence.”

52. I do not understand why the learned Professor has dragged in the
name of Lord Acton. The passage does not really help him. There is one
thing which seems to be uppermost in his mind. He thinks that if Bombay
is included in Maharashtra the Province of Maharashtra will consist of
two nationalities — one consisting of the Marathi-speaking people and the
other of the Gujarathi-speaking people and the Marathi-speaking people
who would be the dominant class will reduce the Gujarathi-speaking
people to a subject condition. It is in support of this he thought of citing
Lord Acton. Such a possibility is always there. There is no objection to
the way in which he has presented the problem. But there are great
objections to the conclusions he draws.

53. In the first place, in a country like India in which society is
throughout communally organized it is obvious that in whatever way it
is divided into areas for administrative purposes, in every area there will
always be one community which by its numbers happens to be a dominant
community. As a dominant community it becomes a sole heir to all political
power, which the area gets. If Marathi-speaking people in a unified
Maharashtra with Bombay thrown into it will become dominant over the
Gujarathi-speaking people, will this prospect be confined to Maharashtra
only ? Will such a phenomena not occur within the Marathi-speaking
people ? Will it not be found in Gujarat if Gujarat became a separate
Province ? I am quite certain that within the Marathi-speaking people
who are sharply divided between the Marathas and the non-Marathas, the
Marathas being a dominant class will reduce both Gujarathi-speaking and
the non-Marathas to a subject condition. In the same way in Gujarat in
some parts the Anavil Brahmins from a dominant class. In other parts it is
the Patidars who form a dominant class. It is quite likely that the Anavils
and the Patidars will reduce the condition of the other communities to

124

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

subjection. The problem therefore is not a problem peculiar to Maharashtra.
It is a general problem.

54. What is the remedy for this problem ? Prof. Gheewala believes that
the remedy lies in having a mixed State. So far as this remedy is concerned
it is not his own. He has adopted it from Lord Acton. But I have no doubt
that so far as Lord Acton advocates this remedy he is quite wrong. Lord
Acton cites the case of Austria in support of his view. Unfortunately, Lord
Acton did not live to see the fate of Austria. It was a mixed State. But far
from providing for the safety of nationalities the clash of nationalities blew
up Austria to bits. The real remedy is not a mixed State but an absolute
State with no power to the people which is generally captured by a communal
majority and exercised in the name of the people. Is Prof. Gheewala prepared
for this remedy ? One need have no doubt to what his answer would be.

55. In the second place, Prof. Gheewala has confounded nationality in the
social sense of the term with Nationality in its legal and political sense.
People often speak of nationality in speaking about Linguistic Provinces.
Such use of the term can be only in the non-legal and non-political sense
of the term. In my scheme there is no room even for the growth of separate
provincial nationality. My proposal nips it in the bud. But even if the
commonly suggested pattern of Linguistic Provinces with the language of
the Province as the official language were adopted, Provinces cannot have
that attribute of sovereignty which independent nations have.

56. It is very difficult to understand what exactly what Prof. Gheewala
wants. Broadly he wants two things : He wants a mixed State and he also
wants that a dominant section should not be in a position to reduce the
smaller sections to subjection. I cannot see how Linguistic Provinces can come
in the way of achieving it. For even after Provinces have been re-constituted
on linguistic basis, —

(1) Provinces will continue to be a conglomeration of communities which
will give Prof. Gheewala the mixed State that he wants ;

(2) If Prof. Gheewala wants a more pronounced form of a mixed State to
protect smaller communities or nationalities, he will certainly have
it at the Centre.

As I have said, I do not think a mixed State is either a good State or stable
State. But if Prof. Gheewala prefers it, he will have it in one form or another,
both in the Provinces as well as at the Centre, in the former in the form of
different communities and in the latter in the form of the representatives
of different Provinces.

57. With regard to his second objective, there will be double protection.
In the first place, the citizen will have such protection as a mixed State
he thinks can give. Secondly, citizenship will be common throughout India.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

125

There is no provincial citizenship. A Gujarathi in Maharashtra will have
the same rights of citizenship in Maharashtra as Maharashtrian will have.

Given these facts, I fail to understand what objection Prof. Gheewala can
have to Linguistic Provinces ?

58. Prof. Gheewala has made two other recommendations. He says, (1) if
Provinces have to be reconstituted, constitute them on rational basis rather
than on linguistic basis and (2) make nationality a personal thing.

59. To reconstitute Provinces on economic basis — which is what is meant
by rational basis — appears more scientific than reconstituting them on
linguistic basis. However, unscientific linguistic reorganization of Provinces I
cannot see how they can come in the way of rational utilization of economic
resources of India. Provincial boundaries are only administrative boundaries.
They do not raise economic barriers for the proper utilization of economic
resources. If the position was that the resources contained within a Linguistic
Province must only be explained by the people of the Province and no other
than it could no doubt be said that the scheme of Linguistic Provinces was
mischievous. But such is not the case. So long as Linguistic Provinces are
not allowed to put a ban on the exploitation of the resources of the people
by any body capably of wishing to exploit them a Linguistic Province will
yield all the advantages of a rationally planned Province.

60. The proposal of making nationality as a personal thing and put it
on the same footing as religion may be dismissed as being to Utopian. It
would raise many administrative problems. It will come when the world is
one and all nationals are its citizens. Nationality will automatically vanish
as being quite useless.

61. So far I have dealt with the arguments advanced by those who are
opposed to the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra. I have taken pains to
do so not because I felt that they were very weighty. I did so because I felt
it desirable to prevent the common man from being misled. The possibility
of this happening was there and for two reasons. In the first place, those
who have come forward with these arguments are not ordinary men. They
are University Professors. Secondly, these Professors came out with their
arguments after Prof. Gadgil had put forth the case for the inclusion of
Bombay in Maharashtra. Unfortunately, no attempt has so far been made to
refute the arguments of the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil. The result has been
the creation of an impression that Prof. Gadgil’s adversaries have carried
the day. It was absolutely essential to remove this impression.

The other side

62. There are however arguments which the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil
have not thought of hut which may be advanced with justice as well as force,

126

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

in favour of the claim of Maharashtrians for the inclusion of Bombay in
Maharashtra. It is quite possible that these arguments may suggest themselves
to the Commission. But I don’t like to leave it to chance. I therefore propose
to set them out below even though the Commission might think that it was
unnecessary.

Calcutta and Bombay

63. In deciding upon the issue of exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra
the Commission will have to take into account the position of Calcutta. Like
Bombay it is the chief emporium of the whole of eastern part of India. Like
the Maharashtrians in Bombay the Bengalis in Calcutta are in a minority.
Like the Maharashtrians in Bombay, the Bengalis do not own the trade
and industry of Calcutta. The position of the Bengalis vis-a-vis Calcutta is
worse than the position of the Maharashtrians vis-a-vis Bombay. For, the
Maharashtrians can at least claim that they have supplied labour if not
capital for the trade and industry of Bombay. The Bengalis cannot even say
this. If the Commission can accept the arguments urged for the separation
of Bombay from Maharashtra, it must be equally prepared to recommend
the separation of Calcutta from West Bengal. For it is a very pertinent
question to ask that if for the reasons given Bombay can be separated from
Maharashtra why when the same reasons exist Calcutta be not separated
from West Bengal.

Is Bombay Viable

64. Before Bombay can be separated it must be proved that financially
Bombay is a viable Province. As I have already said if proper accounting of
revenue and expenditure was made Bombay on the basis of present level of
taxation may not be a self-sufficient Province. If that be so, the proposal for
creating Bombay a separate Province must fall to the ground. It is no use
comparing Bombay with Provinces like Orissa and Assam. The standard of
administration, the standard of living and consequently the level of wages
in Bombay are all so high that I doubt that even with a crashing rate of
taxation Bombay will be able to raise the necessary amount of revenue to
meet the expenditure.

The aim behind Greater Bombay

65. This doubt regarding viability of Bombay Province is heightened
by the indecent haste shown by the Government of Bombay in creating
Greater Bombay by including within the limits of Bombay the adjoining
parts of Maharashtra. It seems that the object of including such area
cannot but be to make Bombay viable. What else can it be? So long as
Bombay remained part of Maharashtra it did not matter to Maharashtrians
in which administrative area a portion of Maharashtra was included. But
when Bombay is to be a separate Province it will take a long time to make

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

127

Maharashtrians part with their territory to make Bombay greater and viable.
What is more important is the scheme of greater Bombay casts responsibility
upon the Linguistic Provinces Commission to decide whether they could,
with justice force Maharashtrians not only to submit to the demand of the
Gujarathis to give up Bombay but also to submit to their further demand
to hand over a part of territory of Maharashtra to make Bombay a viable
Province. The Commission cannot escape this responsibility.

66. Maharashtra and Bombay are not merely inter-dependent, they
are really one and integral. Severance between the two would be fatal to
both. The sources of water and electricity for Bombay lie in Maharashtra.
The intelligentsia of Maharashtra lives in Bombay. To sever Bombay from
Maharashtra would be to make the economic life of Bombay precarious and
to dissociate the masses of Maharashtra from its intelligentsia without whose
lead the masses of Maharashtra will be nowhere.

Arbitration as a Solution

67. I have seen a suggestion made in some quarters that problem of
Bombay should be settled by arbitration. I have never heard of a more absurd
suggestion than this. It is as absurd as the suggestion to refer matrimonial
cause to arbitration. The matrimonial tie is too personal, to be severed by
a third party. Bombay and Maharashtra are tied together by God to use
a Biblical phrase. No arbitrator can put them as under. The only agency
which is authorized to do so is the Commission. Let it decide.

4

NEED FOR CHECKS AND
BALANCES

Article on Linguistic States

From : The Times of India, dated 23rd April 1953

131

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

The British who ruled India for more than 150 years never thought of
creating linguistic States although the problem was always there. They were
more interested in creating a stable administration and maintaining law
and order throughout the country than in catering to the cultural craving of
people in multi-lingual areas. It is quite true that towards the end of their
career they did realise that the administrative set-up which they had built
required some adjustment from the point of view of linguistic considerations,
at any rate in cases where the conglomeration was very glaring. For instance,
they did create Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as linguistic States before they
left. It is difficult to say whether if they had continued to rule, they would
have followed the path of forming linguistic States to its logical conclusion.

But long before the British thought of creating linguistic provinces the
Congress under the aegis of Mr. Gandhi had already in the year 1920 framed
a constitution for itself on the basis of linguistic provinces. Whether the
ideology underlying the constitution of the Congress as framed in 1920 was
a well thoughtout ideology or whether it was a sop to draw people inside
the Congress fold, one need not now stop to speculate. There is, however,
no doubt about it that the British did realise that linguistic considerations
were important and they did give effect to them to a limited extent.

Opposition

Upto the year 1945, the Congress was, of course, not called upon to face
the responsibility which it had created for itself by its constitution of 1920.
It was only in the year 1945 when it assumed office that this responsibility
dawned upon the Congress. Looking into the recent history of the subject
the necessary momentum to the issue was given by a member of Parliament
by moving a resolution for the creation of linguistic provinces in India.

132

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The duty of answering on behalf of the Government to the debate fell on me.
Naturally I took the matter to the higher authorities in order to ascertain
what exactly their point of view was. Strange as it may appear, it became
clear to me that the High Command was totally opposed to the creation of
linguistic provinces. In these circumstances, the solution that was found was
that the responsibility to answer the debate had better be taken over by the
Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in reply to the debate made statement
promising the creation of an Andhra State immediately. On the basis of
the statement made by the Prime Minister, the resolution was withdrawn.
The matter rested there.

Second Time

As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I had to deal with the matter a
second time. When the draft Constitution was completed, I wrote a letter to
the Prime Minister asking him whether I could include Andhra as a separate
State in Part A States of the Constitution in view of what he had said in
the course of the debate on the Resolution. I have nothing with me here
to refresh my memory as to what exactly happened. But the President of
the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, appointed a Committee to
investigate into the formation of linguistic States, under the Chairmanship
of Mr. Dhar, a lawyer from U.P.

People will remember the Dhar Committee for one thing if not for any
other. The Committee said that under no circumstances should Bombay City
be included in Maharashtra if Maharashtra was made a linguistic State.
That report was then considered by the Jaipur session of the Congress.
The Jaipur Congress appointed a Three-Man Committee consisting of the
Prime Minister, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. They
produced a report, the gist of which was that an Andhra province should be
created immediately but the city of Madras should remain with the Tamils.
A committee was appointed to go into the details. It produced a more or less
unanimous report. But the report was opposed by substantial elements among
the Andhras including Mr. Prakasam who were not prepared to relinquish
their claim to Madras, and the thing lay dormant there.

After that comes the incident of Shri Potti Sriramulu who had to sacrifice
his life for the sake of an Andhra province. It is a sad commentary on the
ruling party that Mr. Sriramulu should have had to die for a cause the
validity of which was accepted by all Congressmen. The creation of a new
Andhra province now being thought of is only a pindadan to the departed
soul of Mr. Sriramulu by the Prime Minister. Whether such action on the
part of the Government would have been tolerated in any other country is
a matter on which there is no use speculating.

There are, in my opinion, three conditions which must be satisfied before
a linguistic State is brought into being. The first condition is that it must
be a viable State. This rule was accepted as absolute when the question of

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

133

the merger of the Indian States was under consideration during the making
of the Constitution. Only those Indian States which were viable were
allowed to remain as independent States. All others were merged into the
neighbouring States.

A Sahara ?

Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State ? Mr. Justice Wanchoo had
very candidly admitted that the annual revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra
State will be of the magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. It is possible for the proposed
Andhra State to reduce this gap either by increase of taxation or decrease in
expenditure ? The Andhras must face this question. Is the Centre going to
take the responsibility of meeting this deficit ? If so, will this responsibility
be confined to the proposed Andhra State or will it be extended to all similar
cases ? These are questions which are to be considered.

The new Andhra State has no fixed capital. I might incidently say
that I have never heard of the creation of a State without a capital.
Mr. Rajagopalachari (the staunchest Tamilian tribesman) will not show the
Government of the proposed Andhra State the courtesy of allowing it to
stay in Madras city even for one night — courtesy which is prescribed by the
Hindu Dharma on all Hindus for an atithi. The new Government is left to
choose its own habitat and construct thereon its own hutments to transact
its business. What place can it choose ? With what can it construct its
hutments ? Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it. If it chooses some
place in this Sahara it is bound to shift its quarters to a more salubrious
place, and the money spent on this temporary headquarters would be all a
waste. Has the Government considered this aspect of the case ? Why not
right now give them a place which has the possibility of becoming their
permanent capital.

It seems to me that Warangal is best suited from this point of view. It
is the ancient capital of the Andhras. It is a railway junction. It has got
quite a large number of buildings. It is true that it lies within that part of
Andhra which is part of Hyderabad State. As a matter of principle Hyderabad
State which is a monstrocity should have been broken up and a complete
Andhra State might have been created. But if the Prime Minister has some
conscientious objection to the proposal, can he not create an enclave in the
Andhra part of Hyderabad and join it to the new Andhra State and make a
way to Warangal ? An enclave is not a new thing in India. But the Prime
Minister wants to work against the will of God in Hyderabad as well as in
Kashmir. I am sure he will very soon learn the consequences of it.

First Condition

This is just incidental. My main point is that a linguistic State must
be viable. This is the first consideration in the creation of a linguistic
State. The second consideration is to note what is likely to happen within

134

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a linguistic State. Unfortunately no student has devoted himself to a
demographic survey of the population of India. We only know from our census
reports how many are Hindus, how many are Muslims, how many Jews,
how many Christians and how many untouchables. Except for the knowledge
we get as to how many religions there are this information is of no value.
What we want to know is the distribution of castes in different linguistic
areas. On this we have very little information. One has to depend on one’s
own knowledge and information. I don’t think it would be contradicted if
it is said that the caste set-up within the linguistic area is generally such
that it contains one or two major castes large in number and a few minor
castes living in subordinate dependence on the major castes.

Communal Set-up

Let me give a few illustrations. Take the Punjab of PEPSU. The Jats
dominate the whole area. The untouchables live in subordinate dependence
on them. Take Andhra — there are two or three major communities spread
over the linguistic area. They are either the Reddis or the Kammas and
the Kappus. They hold all the land, all the offices, all the business. The
untouchables live in subordinate dependence on them. Take Maharashtra.
The Marathas are a huge majority in every village in Maharashtra. The
Brahmins, the Gujars, the Kolis and the untouchables live in subordinate
co-operation. There was a time when the Brahmins and the banias lived
without fear. But times have changed. After the murder of Mr. Gandhi, the
Brahmins and the banias got such a hiding from the Marathas that they have
run away to the towns as safety centres. Only the wretched untouchables,
the Kolis and the Malis have remained in the villages to bear the tyranny
of the Maratha communal majority. Anyone who forgets this communal set-
up will do so at his peril.

In a linguistic State what would remain for the smaller communities to
look to ? Can they hope to be elected to the Legislature ? Can they hope to
maintain a place in the State service ? Can they expect any attention to their
economic betterment ? In these circumstances, the creation of a linguistic
State means the handing over of Swaraj to a communal majority. What an
end to Mr. Gandhi’s Swaraj ! Those who cannot understand this aspect of
the problem would understand it better if instead of speaking in terms of
linguistic State we spoke of a Jat State, a Reddy State or a Maratha State.

Third Issue

The third problem which calls for consideration is whether the creation
of linguistic States should take the form of consolidation of the people
speaking one language into one State. Should all Maharashtrians be collected
together into one Maharashtra State ? Should all Andhra area be put into
one Andhra State ? This question of consolidation does not merely relate
to new units. It relates also to the existing linguistic provinces such as

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

135

U.P., Bihar and West Bengal. Why should all Hindi-speaking people be
consolidated into one State as has happened in U.P. ? Those who ask for
consolidation must be asked whether they want to go to war against other
States. If consolidation creates a separate consciousness we will have in
course of time an India very much like what it was after the break-up of
Maurya Empire. Is destiny moving us towards it ?

This does not mean that there is no case for linguistic provinces. What
it means is that there must be definite checks and balances to see that a
communal majority does not abuse its power under the garb of a linguistic
State.

5

THOUGHTS

ON

LINGUISTIC STATES

First Published : 1955
Reprinted from the edition of 1955

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

PREFACE

The creation of Linguistic States is a burning question of the day.
I regret that owing to my illness I was not able to take part in the
debate that took place in Parliament much less in the campaign that
is carried on in the country by partisans in favour of their views. The
question is too important for me to sleep over in silence. Many have
accused me for remaining quiet not knowing what the cause was.

I have therefore taken the other alternative i.e. to set out my
views in writing.

Readers may find certain inconsistencies in my views as expressed in
this brochure and as expressed formerly in certain public statements.
Such changes in my view are, I am sure, very few. The former
statements were made on the basis of fragmentary data. The whole
picture was then not present to the mind. For the first time it met
my eye when the report of the S.R.C. came out. This is sufficient
justification for any change in my views which a critic may find.

To a critic who is a hostile and malicious person and who wants to
make capital out of my inconsistencies my reply is straight. Emerson
has said that consistency is the virtue of an ass and I don’t wish to
make an ass of myself. No thinking human being can be tied down
to a view once expressed in the name of consistency. More important
than consistency is responsibility. A responsible person must learn
to unlearn what he has learned. A responsible person must have the
courage to rethink and change his thoughts. Of course there must
be good and sufficient reasons for unlearning what he has learned
and for recasting his thoughts. There can be no finality in thinking.

140

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The formation of Linguistic States, although essential, cannot be
decided by any sort of hooliganism. Nor must it be solved in a manner
that will serve party interest. It must be solved by cold blooded
reasoning. This is what I have done and this is what I appeal to
my readers to do.

23rd December 1955 B. R. AMBEDKAR

Milind Mahavidyalaya
Nagsen Vana, College Road
Aurangabad (Dn.)

PART I

THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION

CHAPTER 1

LINGUISM AND NOTHING ELSE

The present Constitution of India recognizes the following States which
are enumerated in the Schedule :

Part ‘A’ States

Part ‘B’ States

Part ‘C’ States

1. Andhra

1. Hyderabad

1. Ajmer

2. Assam

2. Jammu and

2. Bhopal

3. Bihar

Kashmir

3. Coorg

4. Bombay

3. Madhya Bharat

4. Delhi

5. Madhya Pradesh

4. Mysore

5. Himachal Pradesh

6. Madras

5. Patiala

6. Kutch

7. Orissa

6. Rajasthan

7. Manipur

8. Punjab

7. Saurashtra

8. Tripura

9. Uttar Pradesh

8. Travancore- Cochin

9. Vindhya Pradesh

Article 3 of the Constitution gives power to Parliament to create new
States. This was done because there was no time to reorganize the States
on linguistic basis for which there was a great demand.

In pursuance of this incessant demand the Prime Minister appointed the
States Reorganization Commission to examine the question. In its report
the States Reorganization Commission has recommended the creation of
the following States :

Proposed New States

Name of the State

Area

(in sq. miles)

Population
(in crores)

Language

1. Madras

50,170

3.00

Tamil

2. Kerala

14,980

1.36

Malyalam

3. Karnatak

72,730

1.90

Kanarese

4. Hyderabad

45,300

1.13

Telugu

5. Andhra

64,950

2.09

Telugu

6. Bombay

151,360

4.02

Mixed

7. Vidarbha

36,880

0.76

Marathi

142

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Proposed New States — contd.

Name of the State

Area

(in sq. miles)

Population
(in crores)

Language

8.

Madhya Pradesh

171,200

2.61

Hindi

9.

Rajasthan

132,300

1.60

Rajasthani

10.

Punjab

58,140

1.72

Punjabi

11.

Uttar Pradesh

113,410

6.32

Hindi

12.

Bihar

66,520

3.82

Hindi

13.

West Bengal

34,590

2.65

Bengali

14.

Assam

89,040

0.97

Assamese

15.

Orissa

60,140

1.46

Oria

16.

Jammu and Kashmir

92,780

0.14

Kashmiri

The important thing is to compare the size of the

States —

Taking population as the measuring red the result may be presented as
follows :

There are 8 States with a population between 1 and 2 crores each.

There are 4 States with a population between 2 and 4 crores.

There is one State above 4 crores.

There is one State above 6 crores.

The result, to say the least, is fantastic. The Commission evidently thinks
that the size of a State is a matter of no consequence and that the equality in
the size of the States constituting a Federation is a matter of no moment.

This is the first and the most terrible error which the Commission has
committed. If not rectified in time, it will cost India a great deal.

CHAPTER 2

LINGUISM IN EXCELSIS

In the first chapter it has been pointed out that one result of the recommendations
of the States Reorganization Commission is the disparity in the size of the different
States the Commission has suggested for creation.

But there is another fault in the recommendations of the Commission which
perhaps is hidden but which is nonetheless real.

It lies in not considering the North in relation to the South. This will be clear
from the following table :

Southern States Central States Northern States*

Name

Population

Name

Population

Name

. . Population

(in crores)

(in crores)

(in crores)

Madras

3.00

Maharashtra

3.31

Uttar

Pradesh

6.32

Kerala

1.36

Gujarat

1.13

Bihar

3.85

Karnataka ..

1.90

Saurashtra

0.4

Madhya

Pradesh

2.61

Andhra

1.09

Kutch

0.5

Rajasthan .

1.60

Hyderabad ..

1.13

Punjab

1.72

* I have included certain centrally situated States because by language they are affiliated to
one another.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

143

This scheme of dividing India in the name of Linguistic States cannot
be overlooked. It is not so innocuous as the Commission thinks. It is full
of poison. The poison must be emptied right now.

The nature of Union of India expresses only an idea. It does not
indicate an achievement. Bryce in his “ American Commonwealth” relates
the following incident which is very instructive. This is what he says :

“A few years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied
at its annual conference in revising liturgy. It was thought desirable to
introduce among the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people ;
and an eminent New England Divine proposed the words ‘O Lord, bless our
Nation’. Accepted one afternoon on the spur of the moment, the sentence
was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were
raised by the laity to the word, ‘Nation’, as importing too definite recognition
of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the
words, ‘O Lord, bless these United States.’ ”

India is not even mentally and morally fit to call itself the United
States of India. We have to go a long way to become the United States
of India. The Union of India is far, far away, from the United States of
India. But this consolidation of the North and balkanisation of the South
is not the way to reach it.

PART II

THE LIMITATIONS OF LINGUISM

CHAPTER 3

THE PROS AND CONS OF A LINGUISTIC STATE

“One State, one language” is a universal feature of almost every State.
Examine the constitution of Germany, examine the constitution of France,
examine the constitution of Italy, examine the constitution of England,
and examine the constitution of the U.S.A. “One State, one language” is
the rule.

Wherever there has been a departure from this rule there has been a
danger to the State. The illustration of the mixed States are to be found
in the old Austrian Empire and the old Turkish Empire. They were blown
up because they were multi-lingual States with all that a multi-lingual
State means. India cannot escape this fate if it continues to be a congery
of mixed States.

The reasons why a unilingual State is stable and a multi-lingual State
unstable are quite obvious. A State is built on fellow-feeling. What is this
fellow-feeling ? To state briefly it is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of
oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith
and kin. This feeling is a double-edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of

144

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

fellowship for one’s own kith and kin and anti-fellowship for those who are
not one’s own kith and kin. It is a feeling of “consciousness of kind ” which
on the one hand, binds together those who have it so strongly that it over-
rides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations
and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of their kind. It is
a longing not to belong to any other group.

The existence of this fellow-feeling is the foundation of a stable and
democratic State.

This is one reason why a linguistic State is so essential. But there are
other reasons why a State should be unilingual. There are two other reasons
why the rule “one State, one language ” is necessary.

One reason is that democracy cannot work without friction unless there
is fellow-feeling among those who constitute the State. Faction fights for
leadership and discrimination in administration are factors ever present in
a mixed State and are incompatible with democracy.

The present State of Bombay is the best illustration of the failure of
democracy in a mixed State. I am amazed at the suggestion made by the
States Reorganization Commission that the present Bombay State should
be continued as it is to enable us to gain experience of how a mixed State
flourishes. With Bombay as a mixed State for the last 20 years, with the
intense enmity between the Maharashtrians and Gujaratis, only a thoughtless
or an absent-minded person could put forth such a senseless proposal. The
former State of Madras is another illustration of the failure of democracy
in a mixed State. The formation of a mixed State of United India and the
compulsory division of India into India and Pakistan are other illustrations
of the impossibility of having democracy in a mixed State.

Another reason why it is necessary to adopt the rule of “one State, one
language” is that it is the only solvent to racial and cultural conflicts.

Why do Tamils hate Andhras and Andhras hate Tamils ? Why do Andhras
in Hyderabad hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Andhras ? Why
do Gujaratis hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Gujaratis ? The
answer is very simple. It is not because there is any natural antipathy between
the two. The hatred is due to the fact that they are put in juxtaposition and
forced to take part in a common cycle of participation, such as Government.
There is no other answer.

So long as this enforced juxtaposition remains, there will be no peace
between the two.

There will be people who would cite the cases of Canada, Switzerland
and South Africa. It is true that these cases of bilingual States exist. But
it must not be forgotten that the genius of India is quite different from the
genius of Canada, Switzerland and South Africa. The genius of India is to
divide — the genius of Switzerland, South Africa and Canada is to unite.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

145

The fact that they have been held together uptil now is not in the
natural course of things. It is due to the fact that both of them are bound
by the Congress discipline. But how long is the Congress going to last ?
The Congress is Pandit Nehru and Pandit Nehru is Congress. But is Pandit
Nehru immortal ? Any one who applies his mind to these questions will
realize that the Congress will not last till the sun and the moon. It must one
day come to an end. It might come to an end even before the next election.
When this happens the State of Bombay will find itself engaged in civil war
and not in carrying on administration.

We therefore want linguistic States for two reasons. To make easy the
way to democracy and to remove racial and cultural tension.

In seeking to create linguistic States India is treading the right road. It is
the road which all States have followed. In the case of other linguistic States
they have been so, from the very beginning. In the case of India she has to
put herself in the reverse gear to reach the goal. But the road she proposes
to travel is well-tried road. It is a road which is followed by other States.

Having stated the advantages of a linguistic State I must also set out
the dangers of a linguistic State.

A linguistic State with its regional language as its official language
may easily develop into an independent nationality. The road between an
independent nationality and an independent State is very narrow. If this
happens, India will cease to be Modern India we have and will become the
medieval India consisting of a variety of States indulging in rivalry and
warfare.

This danger is of course inherent in the creation of linguistic States.
There is equal danger in not having linguistic States. The former danger a
wise and firm statesman can avert. But the dangers of a mixed State are
greater and beyond the control of a statesman however eminent.

How can this danger be met ? The only way I can think of meeting the
danger is to provide in the Constitution that the regional language shall not
be the official language of the State. The official language of the State shall
be Hindi and until India becomes fit for this purpose English. Will Indians
accept this ? If they do not, linguistic States may easily become a peril.

One language can unite people. Two languages are sure to divide people.
This is an inexorable law. Culture is conserved by language. Since Indians
wish to unite and develop a common culture it is the bounden duty of all
Indians to own up Hindi as their language.

Any Indian who does not accept this proposal as part and parcel of a
linguistic State has no right to be an Indian. He may be a hundred per cent
Maharashtrian, a hundred per cent Tamil or a hundred per cent Gujarathi,

146

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

but he cannot be an Indian in the real sense of the word except in a
geographical sense. If my suggestion is not accepted India will then cease
to be India. It will be a collection of different nationalities engaged in
rivalries and wars against one another.

God seems to have laid a heavy curse on India and Indians, saying ‘Ye
Indians shall always remain divided and ye shall always be slaves !’

I was glad that India was separated from Pakistan. I was the philosopher,
so to say, of Pakistan. I advocated partition because I felt that it was only
by partition that Hindus would not only be independent but free. If India
and Pakistan had remained united in one State Hindus though independent
would have been at the mercy of the Muslims. A merely independent India
would not have been a free India from the point of view of the Hindus.
It would have been a Government of one country by two nations and of
these two the Muslims without question would have been the ruling race
notwithstanding Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh. When the partition
took place I felt that God was willing to lift his curse and let India be one,
great and prosperous. But I fear that the curse may fall again. For I find
that those who are advocating linguistic States have at heart the ideal of
making the regional language their official language.

This will be a death knell to the idea of a United India. With regional
languages as official languages the ideal to make India one United country
and to make Indians, Indians first and Indians last, will vanish. I can do
no more than to suggest a way out. It is for Indians to consider it.

CHAPTER 4

MUST THERE BE ONE STATE FOR ONE LANGUAGE ?

What does a linguistic State mean ?

It can mean one of two things. It can mean that all people speaking one
language must be brought under the jurisdiction of one State. It can also
mean that people speaking one language may be grouped under many States
provided each State has under its jurisdiction people who are speaking one
language. Which is the correct interpretation ?

The Commission took the view that the creation of one single State for
all people speaking one and the same language was the only rule to be
observed.

Let the reader have a look at map No. 1. He will at once note the
disparity between the Northern and Southern States. This disparity is
tremendous. It will be impossible for the small States to bear the weight
of the big States.

How dangerous this disparity is, the Commission has not realized. Such
disparity no doubt exists in the United States. But the mischief it might

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

147

cause has been prevented by the provisions in the Constitution of the
United States.

One such safeguard in the Constitution of the United States has been
referred to by Mr. Pannikar in his dissenting minute to the Report ( See
Table No. 2).

I give below the following extract from his minute :

“I consider it essential for the successful working of a federation that the
units should be fairly evenly balanced. Too great a disparity is likely to create
not only suspicion and resentment but generate forces likely to undermine the
federal structure itself and thereby be a danger to the unity of the country.
This is clearly recognised everywhere. In most federal constitutions, though
wide variation exists in respect of the population and resources of the unit,
care is taken to limit the influence and authority of the larger States. Thus in
the United States of America, for example, though the States are of varying
population and resources and the State of New York has many times the
population, say of Nevada, the constitution provides for equal representation
of every State in the Senate.”

On this point Mr. Pannikar also refers to the Soviet Union and old
Germany. This is what he says:

“In the Soviet Union also, in which great Russia has a larger population
than most other units of the Federation taken together, representation in
the House of Nationalities is weighed against her so that the other units of
the Federation may not be dominated by the larger unit. In the Bismarckian
Reich again, though Prussia had a dominant position from the point of view
of population, she was given less representation in the Reichsrat or the
house representing the states than she was entitled to (less than one-third)
and the permanent presidency of that body was vested in Bavaria, clearly
demonstrating that even here — where there was concentration of political,
military and economic power in one State — it was considered necessary, in
the interest of the union, to give weightage to the smaller units and also to
reduce Prussia to the position of minority in the Reichsrat, States Council,
which enjoyed greater powers than the Reichstag or the House of the People.”

Mr. Pannikar has however not mentioned one other safeguard in the
Constitution of the United States against the evils of disparity. In our
Constitution the two Houses are not co-equal in authority. But the position
in the Constitution of the United States is quite different. In the U.S.A.
the two Houses are co-equal in authority. Even for money bills the consent
of the Senate is necessary. This is not so in India. This makes a great
difference to the disparity in the population.

This disparity in the population and power between the States is sure
to plague the country. To provide a remedy against it is most essential.

148

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

CHAPTER 5

THE NORTH VERSUS THE SOUTH

What the Commission has created is not a mere disparity between the
States by leaving U.P. and Bihar as they are, by adding to them a new
and a bigger Madhya Pradesh with Rajasthan it creates a new problem
of North versus South.

The North is Hindi speaking. The South is non-Hindi speaking. Most
people do not know what is the size of the Hindi-speaking population. It
is as much as 48 per cent of the total population of India. Fixing one’s
eye on this fact one cannot fail to say that the Commission’s effort will
result in the consolidation of the North and the balkanization of the South.

Can the South tolerate the dominance of the North?

It may now not be a breach of a secret if I revealed to the public what
happened in the Congress Party meeting when the Draft Constitution of
India was being considered, on the issue of adopting Hindi as the national
language. There was no article which proved more controversial than
Article 115 which deals with the question. No article produced more
opposition. No article, more heat. After a prolonged discussion when
the question was put, the vote was 78 against 78. The tie could not
be resolved. After a long time when the question was put to the Party
meeting the result was 77 against 78 for Hindi. Hindi won its place as a
national language by one vote. I am stating these facts from my personal
knowledge. As Chairman of the Drafting Committee I had naturally entry
to the Congress Party enclosure.

These facts reveal how much the South dislikes the North. This
dislike may grow into hatred if the North remains consolidated and the
South becomes disintegrated and if the North continues to exercise a
disproportionate influence on the politics of India ( See Map 1).

To allow one State to have such preponderating influence in the Centre
is a dangerous thing.

Mr. Pannikar has referred to this aspect of the case. In his dissenting
minute he says :

“The consequence of the present imbalance, caused by the denial of the
federal principal of equality of units, has been to create feelings of distrust and
resentment in all the States outside Uttar Pradesh. Not only in the Southern
States but also in the Punjab, Bengal and elsewhere the view was generally
expressed before the Commission that the present structure of government
led to the dominance of Uttar Pradesh in all-India matters. The existence of
this feeling will hardly be denied by anyone. That it will be a danger to our
unity, if such feelings are allowed to exist and remedies are not sought and
found now, will also not be denied.”

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

149

There is a vast difference between the North and the South. The North is
conservative. The South is progressive. The North is superstitious, the South
is rational. The South is educationally forward, the North is educationally
backward. The culture of the South is modern. The culture of the North is
ancient.

Did not Prime Minister Nehru on the 15th of August 1947 sit at the
Yajna performed by the Brahmins of Benares to celebrate the event of a
Brahmin becoming the first Prime Minister of free and independent India
and wear the Raja Danda given to him by these Brahmins and drink the
water of the Ganges brought by them ?

How many women have been forced to go Sati in recent days and immolate
themselves on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands. Did not the President
recently go to Benares and worship the Brahmins, washed their toes and
drank the water ?

The North still has its Satis, its Nanga Sadhus. What havoc the Nanga
Sadhus made at the last Hardwar Fair ! Did anyone in U.P. protest against
it ?

How can the rule of the North be tolerated by the South ? Already there
signs of the South wanting to break away from the North.

Mr. Rajagopalachari has made a statement on the recommendations of
the States Reorganization Commission which has appeared in the Times of
India of the 27th November, 1955. This is what he says :

“If it is impossible to put the States Reorganization Schemes in cold storage
for the next 15 years, the only alternative is for the Centre to govern India as
a unitary state and deal with district officers and district boards directly, with
regional commissioners’ supervision.

“It would be utterly wrong to fritter away national energy in dispute
over boundaries and divisions conceived in the drawing room and not on the
background of conditions that have resulted historically.

“Apart from the general convictions of mine, I feel that a large southern
State is absolutely essential for preserving the political significance of that part
of the country. To cut the South up into Tamil, Malayalam and other small
States will result only in complete insignificance of everybody and, in the net
result, India as a whole will be the poorer.”

Mr. Rajagopalachari has not expressed himself fully. He did do so fully
and openly to me when he was the Head of the State and I was the Law
Minister in charge of drafting the constitution. I went to Mr. Rajagopalachari
for my usual interview which was the practice of the day. At one such
interview Mr. Rajagopalachari, referring to the sort of constitution which
the Constituent Assembly was making, said to me, “You are committing
a great mistake. One federation for the whole of India with equal

150

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

representation for all areas will not work. In such a federation the Prime
Minister and President of India will always be from the Hindi speaking
area. You should have two Federations, one Federation of the North and
one Federation of the South and a Confederation of the North and the
South with three subjects for the Confederation to legislate upon and equal
representation for both the federations.”

These are the real thoughts of Mr. Rajagopalachari. They came to me as
a revelation coming as they did from the innermost heart of a Congressman.
I now regard Mr. Rajagopalachari as a prophet predicting the break-up
of India into the North and the South. We must do everything to falsify
Mr. Rajagopalachari’s prophecy.

It must not be forgotten that there was a civil war in the U.S.A. between
the North and the South. There may also be a civil war between the North
and the South in India. Time will supply many grounds for such a conflict.
It must not be forgotten that there is a vast cultural difference between the
North and the South and cultural differences are very combustible.

In creating this consolidation of the North and balkanization of the South
the Commission did not realize that they were dealing with a political and
not a merely linguistic problem.

It would be most unstatesmanlike not to take steps right now to prevent
such a thing happening. What is the remedy ?

PART III

SOLUTION

CHAPTER 6

THE DIVISION OF THE NORTH

The problem having been realized we must now search for a solution.

The solution lies obviously in adopting some standard for determining
the size of a State. It is not easy to fix such a standard. If two crores of
population be adopted as a standard measure most of the Southern States
will become mixed States. The enlargement of the Southern States to meet
the menace of the Northern States is therefore impossible. The only remedy
is to break up the Nothern States of U.P., Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.

How did this solution not strike the Congress Working Committee I am
unable to understand. It is so obvious.

Division of the Northern States

As I have said the Commission in designing linguistic States has created
a consolidation of the North and balkanization of the South. The Commission
has not I am sure done this intentionally. But intentionally or unintentionally
the fact is there. Its evil consequences are also clear.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

151

It is therefore necessary that this situation must be rectified. The only way
to do this is to divide the three States of (1) Uttar Pradesh, (2) Bihar and

(3) Madhya Pradesh into smaller units.

In this behalf I make bold to offer certain tentative proposals.

This division does not conflict with the underlying principles of a linguistic
State. For, if these States are divided in the way suggested, each resulting State
will be a linguistic State.

I am happy to find Mr. Pant saying in the recent debate in Parliament on
the subject that he has no objection to the cutting up of the U.P. What he said
for U.P. may well be taken as applicable to Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.

Division of Uttar Pradesh. — My proposal with regard to the Uttar Pradesh
is to divide it into three States (See Map 2). Each of these three States should
have a population of approximately two crores which should be regarded as
the standard size of population for a State to administer effectively. Where
the boundary lines of these three States should be drawn I have shown in the
accompanying Map No. 2.

The three States of the Uttar Pradesh could have as their capitals (1) Meerut
(2) Cawnpore and (3) Allahabad. They are situated quite in the centre of each
of these three States.

Division of Bihar — My proposal with regard to Bihar is to divide it into two
States (See Map 3). Each of these two States will have a population of a little
over one and half crores. It is not a small population for one Government to
administer.

Where the boundary lines should be drawn I have shown in the accompanying
Map No. 3.

The two States of Bihar could have as their capitals (1) Patna and (2) Ranchi.
They are situated quite in the centre of the two States.

Division of Madhya Pradesh. — Madhya Pradesh stands before us in two forms.
The old Madhya Pradesh and the new Madhya Pradesh.

The old Madhya Pradesh consisted of :

(1) the Province at one time known as C. P. and Berar, and

(2) some Indian States out of the States known as the Eastern States.

This old State of Madhya Pradesh had a population of 21 4 crores. It consisted
of 22 districts. Its legislature had 223 members.

The new Madhya Pradesh as planned by the Commission will consist of:

(1) the 14 districts of the old Madhya Pradesh,

(2) the whole of Bhopal,

(3) the whole of Vindhya Pradesh,

(4) Madhya Bharat except : Sunel enclave of Mandasaur district, and

(5) the Sironj sub-division of Kota district of Rajasthan.

152

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The total population of this new Madhya Pradesh will be 26.1 million and its
area will be about 171.200 square miles.

I suggest that it should be divided into two States : (1) Northern Madhya
Pradesh, (2) Southern Madhya Pradesh (See Map 4).

The State of New Madhya Pradesh should consist of the following areas :

(1) The whole of Vindhya Pradesh.

(2) The whole State of Bhopal.

The State of Southern Madhya Pradesh should consist of —

(1) the whole State of Indore, and

(2) the 14 districts of Mahakosal.

The population of this Indore State will be about 2 crores and the population
of this Vindhya Pradesh will be about 1.30 crores. (See Map No. 4).

Why the Commission created this monster State it is no way to know. Even
Prime Minister Nehru was surprised at its creation.

All that one can think of is that the Commission has been under the impression
that one language, one State is a categorical imperative from which there is no
escape. As I have shown one language, one State can never be categorical imperative.
In fact one State, one language should be the rule. And therefore people forming
one language can divide themselves into many States.

CHAPTER 7

THE PROBLEMS OF MAHARASHTRA
1

THE PROPOSALS TO DEAL WITH MAHARASHTRA

Maharashtra is another area which is a subject of controversy.

There are four proposals in the field :

(1) To retain the Bombay State as it is i.e. to retain it as a mixed State
consisting of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bombay.

(2) To disrupt the existing State and to separate Maharashtra and Gujarat
and make them into two separate States.

(3) To make united Maharashtra with Bombay as one State.

(4) To separate Bombay from Maharashtra and make it a separate City State.

I would like to state what my proposals are. They are as follows :

Bombay as a mixed State should be done away with.

I would divide Maharashtra into four States (See Map 5) : (1) Maharashtra
City State (Bombay), (2) Western Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra and
(4) Eastern Maharashtra.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

153

Maharashtra City State. — The City of Bombay plus such area of
Maharashtra as would enable it to be a good and strong City State.

Western Maharashtra. — (1) Thana, (2) Kolaba, (3) Ratnagiri, (4) Poona,
(5) North Satara, (6) South Satara, (7) Kolhapur and (8) the Marathi-speaking
territories given over to Karnataka.

Central Maharashtra — (1) Dang, (2) East Khandesh, (3) West Khandesh,

(4) Nasik, (5) Ahmednagar, (6) Aurangabad, (7) Nanded, (8) Parbhani,
(9) Beed, (10) Usmanabad, (11) Sholapur City and the Marathi-speaking
area of Sholapur District and (12) the Marathi-speaking territories given
over to Telangana.

Eastern Maharashtra. — (1) Buldhana, (2) Yeotmal, (3) Akola, (4) Amraoti,

(5) Wardha, (6) Chanda, (7) Nagpur, (8) Bhandara and (9) the Marahi-
speaking territories given to Hindi States.

I will next proceed to examine the merits of these proposals.

II

MAHARASHTRIANS UNDER THE MIXED STATE

Should Bombay remain a mixed State ? It is a most unusual procedure.
The City of Calcutta is not a separate City State. Madras is not a separate
City State. Why Bombay alone be made the exception ?

Secondly, it is already a mixed State. What is the experience of the
Maharashtrians under this mixed State ? The Maharashtrians have suffered
terribly under this mixed State.

What is the position of the Maharashtrians in the Bombay Cabinet ?

Let us consider the distribution of Ministership :

Gujarathi Ministers ... ... ... 4

Marathi Ministers ... ... ... 4

Kannada Ministers ... ... ... 1

Total ... 9

Gujarathi members in the Assembly are only 106, Marathi members
are 149 and yet the number of Gujarathi Ministers is equal to that of

Maharashtrian Ministers.

Let us come to Deputy Ministers :

Marathi speaking ... ... ... 5

Gujarathi speaking ... ... ... 2

Kannada speaking ... ... ... 2

Total ... 9

Only among Deputy Ministers do the Maharashtrians have a majority
of one.

154

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

But how the power and subjects are distributed among the Ministers
and Deputy Ministers is the most important matter. It shows what power
and authority the Maharashtrian Ministers possess in this mixed Cabinet
of the Bombay State.

Allocation of Subjects among Ministers

Gujarathi Ministers

Maharashtrian Ministers

1 .

Morarji Desai

105

Subs.

Hirey

49

Subs.

2.

Dinkerrao Desai

26

Subs.

Nimbalkar ..

20

Subs.

3.

Jivaraj Mehta

43

Subs.

Tapase

15

Subs.

4.

Shantilal Shah

28

Subs.

Chavan

4

Subs.

Total ..

202

88

The allocation of subjects among Deputy Ministers is also done on the
same pattern.

Allocation of Subjects among Deputy Ministers

Gujarathi Maharashtrian

Deputy Ministers Deputy Ministers

1 .

Indumati Sheth

12

Subs.

1 .

Wandrekar

.. 12

Subs.

2.

Babubhai J. Patel

3

Subs.

2.

Deshmukh

4

Subs.

3.

Naravane

5

Subs.

4.

Sathe

5

Subs.

5.

Faki

3

Subs.

Total

15

29

Let us now consider how much money is spent on development in
Maharashtra and in Gujarath. The following figures will give an idea of the
Per Capita Expenditure for the three years on Maharashtra and Gujarath :

Per Capita Expenditure on Development in Rupees

Years

Population 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53

1. Maharashtra .. 2,17,20,091 1.7 2.3 1.8

2. Gujarath .. 1,18,96,789 2.9 3.1 3.2

What a differential treatment ? What a discrimination ? What an injustice ?
Can anybody blame the Maharashtrians if they felt disgusted with the mixed
State of Bombay ?

Such a position of subordination no Maharashtrian can tolerate. The idea
of a mixed State must be blown off once for all.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

155

III

THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF BOMBAY

The Bombay City is an area which is a subject matter of controversy.
The controversy has become very acute.

Maharashtrians want the City to be part of Maharashtra, Gujarathis
want the City to be a separate State. Heads have been broken over the
controversy. But there has been no agreement. It is therefore necessary to
go to the root of the matter.

The Gujarathis do not claim Bombay City as their own. But will not let go
their hold on it. They claim a sort of easement over it by reason of the fact
that they control the trade and industry of the City. The issue is : should
it become part of Maharashtra or should it be constituted into a separate
State ? The Gujarathis and Maharashtrians are sharply divided on the
issue. The Maharashtrians want that Bombay should become exclusively a
part of the new Maharashtra State. The Gujarathis are stoutly opposed to
it. They have presented two alternatives. One alternative is not to break up
the existing bi-lingual State of Bombay into two linguistic units of Gujarath
and Maharashtra. The Congress Working Committee’s decision is to make
the city of Bombay into a separate State.

The Gujarathis are happy. The Maharashtrians are naturally angry.

The resentment of the Maharashtrians is well justified. The arguments
urged against the claim of the Maharashtrians have no force at all.

The first argument that is urged is that the Marathi-speaking population
of Bombay City does not form a majority of the total population of the City.
The total population of Bombay City is very large ( See Statistical Appendix).
Marathi-speaking population is 48 per cent.

Those who use this kind of argument do not seem to realize the weakness
of it

The total Marathi population of Bombay City is no doubt less than
50 per cent but it has to be valued against two factors. One is that
geographically no one can deny that Bombay is part of Maharashtra even if
the Maharashtrians are in a minority in the City. Even Mr. Morarji Desai
admitted in the course of his speech in the meeting of the Gujarath Pradesh
Congress Committee that Bombay is part of Maharashtra.

The second point to be taken into consideration in valuing the population
factor is the continued influx of population from the rest of India who come
to Bombay either for making profits or for earning their bread. None of
them regard Bombay as their home ; they should not therefore be counted
as permanent residents of Bombay City. Many come for a few months and
go back.

156

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Bombay is a home only to the Maharashtrians and none else. It is not
therefore logical or fair to count the non-Maharashtrians for the purpose of
coming to the conclusion as to who form the majority of population in the
Bombay City.

Again it is not realized that the increase in the non-Marathi-speaking
people in the Bombay City is due to the absence of a local law restricting
citizenship. If Bombay State had such a law all this influx into Bombay
from all parts of India could have been shut out and the Maharashtrian
majority retained.

It is also not realized that the influx of the non-Maharashtrians in Bombay
is due to the fact that Bombay is a port, and it is a port on the Western
Coast. The route from Europe to Bombay is much shorter than the route
from Europe to Calcutta or Europe to Madras. That is why large number of
poor people from other parts of India leave their homes and come to Bombay
as temporary residents. It is easier to find a job in Bombay than elsewhere.

Really speaking the matter has to be looked at from a different point of
view. People have been coming to Bombay for the last two hundred years or
so. Yet this influx has not reduced the Maharashtrian population in the city
below 48 per cent. After two hundred years, the bedrock of its population
remains Maharashtrian in its composition. This is due to the migratory
character of City ( See Appendix 3). The Gujarathis are migratory population.

There are also other arguments which could be urged in favour of allowing
Bombay to remain as part of Maharashtra.

Bombay is not the only composite city in India. Calcutta and Madras are
also composite cities. If Calcutta can be part of Western Bengal and Madras
can be part of Madras State what objection can there be to Bombay being
made part of Maharashtra ? This is the question that every Maharashtrian
will ask. I see no answer to this question. The only answer that comes to
one’s mind is that the Congress High Command thinks that Maharashtrians
are unfit to rule others. This is a slur on the Maharashtrian character and
they will not tolerate it.

It is said that Bombay has been built up by the capital belonging to
non-Maharashtrians. That may be so. But has Madras been built by the
capital of Madrasees ? Has Calcutta been built by the capital of Bengalees?
Without the capital of Europeans Madras and Calcutta would have been
villages. Then why urge this point against the Maharashtrians when they
claim Bombay to themselves ? Maharashtrians have at least contributed
labour without which Bombay could not have been what it is. It must
always be remembered that the life lines of Bombay lie in Maharashtra. The
sources of its electricity lie in Maharashtra. Sources of its water supply lie
in Maharashtra. The sources of its labour lie in Maharashtra. Maharashtra
can at any time make the city of Bombay ‘MohenjocLarc> a City of the Dead.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

157

The Gujarathi population is filled with fear that Maharashtrians
will practise discrimination against them. But under our Constitution
discrimination is not possible for the reason that the Constitution contains
a list of fundamental rights and remedies by way of writs from the High
Court and the Supreme Court which can immediately provide redress for
a wrong. For every wrong of a discriminative character there is a remedy
provided by the Constitution. Why should the Gujarathis have any fear ?

Let us now consider what benefit the Gujarathis are going to get from
Bombay being made a separate City State. Their population in the Bombay
State is only ten per cent. How many seats can they get in the Bombay City
State Legislature ? Not even ten per cent. How can ten per cent protect
their clients against 90 per cent ?

It must be remembered that the feelings between the Maharashtrians
and the Gujarathis would hereafter be running high as never before. A
Maharashtrian will not vote for a Gujarathi candidate and a Gujarathi
voter will not vote for a Maharashtrian candidate. Hitherto the Gujarathis
have been able to plough the sands of Maharashtra with their money. But
money may not succeed once self-respect is aroused. The Gujarathis must
consider whether goodwill is not a better protection than a paltry share in
the Government of the City.

While the case of Maharashtra is as strong as steel there are some points
on the other side which they must not fail to consider in their anger.

They want Bombay to be within Maharashtra. But the question which
they must consider is : What do they want ? Do they want prosperous
Bombay or do they want decadent Bombay ? Can Bombay be prosperous
under Maharashtra ? This in other words means : can Maharashtra
provide the capital necessary for the growing trade and industry of the
City ? No Maharashtrian can answer this question in the affirmative. The
Maharashtrians may be able to supply the need for capital after a course
of years. But certainly not now.

The second point is : what would be the effect on the standard of living
of Maharashtrians living in Bombay if the City’s prosperity declines either
by flight of capital or removal of business houses. The Maharashtrians must
not forget, however it may hurt their pride, that they are a nation of clerks
and coolies. What employment can they get in a declining city ?

The Maharashtrian should consider the question of Bombay from this
point of view. There is a saying which says :

yofni^l 3T*f qfecT: I

There is also another reason why Bombay City should be made a separate
state. The minorities and the Scheduled Castes who are living in the villages
are constantly subjected to tyranny, oppression, and even murders by the
members of the majority communities. The minorities need an asylum,

158

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a place of refuge where they can be free from the tyranny of the majority.
If there was a United Maharashtra with Bombay included in it where they
can go to for safety ? The same tyranny was practised over the Brahmins,
Marwaris and Gujarathis living in the villages when Godse killed Mr. Gandhi.
All the Brahmins, Marwaris and Gujarathis who were once living in villages
ran away and are now living in towns and forgetting their experiences are
shouting for United Maharashtra, after having reached a safe harbour.

It seems to me that Maharashtrians will do well to accept the decision
of the Congress High Command for the time being.

The Maharashtrians need have no fear of losing Bombay. Nobody can
dispossess Maharashtrians of Bombay. Much less can there be any custer
of them by anybody.

The real objection to the creation of Bombay as a separate State arises
from the fact that the name Bombay does not carry within it the sense that
it is part of Maharashtra. It is to remove this objection that I propose that
the new State of Bombay should be renamed by another name which will
carry on its face the word Maharashtra.

Supposing in terms of this suggestion instead of saying that Bombay
be made a separate State it is said that Maharashtra be divided into four
States, (1) Maharashtra City State (which is Bombay City), (2) Western
Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra, (4) Eastern Maharashtra; what
objection can there be to the creation of a separate State of Bombay ?

This also involves the separation of Bombay. With this change in the
name of the City I like to know which Maharashtrian can raise objection
to the creation of Bombay as a separate City State on the ground that this
scheme separates Bombay from Maharashtra ? To say that Bombay be made
a separate State is merely stating that Maharashtra be divided into four
States. If there is no objection to Maharashtra being divided into two or
three States what objection can there be to Maharashtra being divided into
four? I can see none. For the sake of similarity in language I propose that
Calcutta be called Bengal City State and Madras be called Tamil City State.

This is one proposal which I make to ease the tension between
Maharashtrians and Gujarathis.

The Maharashtra City State will be a surplus State. Those who are
wanting United Maharashtra with Bombay are hoping to get the benefit of
this surplus for Maharashtra.

The surplus revenue of the City State arises because of (1) The Property
Tax and (2) The Electricity Tax. Can the revenue from these two sources
be appropriated by Maharashtra if Bombay becomes a separate City State ?

Nothing can be done to take away the yield of the Property Tax from
the Bombay City State Property Tax. It is a local tax, on local situated

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

159

property. The State within which the property is situated is entitled to the
yield of the Tax.

With regard to the Electricity Tax the situation is different.

When Gujarath and Maharashtra are separated — and they must be —
Gujarath will claim the revenue derived from electricity produced and
consumed within Gujarath. Maharashtra will claim the revenue derived from
electricity produced and consumed within Maharashtra. Bombay City as a
State will do the same. Can Bombay be allowed to do so and appropriate
the revenue to itself ? Is it just ? Bombay City does not produce electricity.
It is produced outside Bombay City in Maharashtra. Therefore the new
Bombay City State has no right to appropriate to itself the whole revenue
derived from electricity. The proper thing to do is to apply the principle of
the segregation of the sources and division of the yield well known to all
students of State Finance.

To put it in concrete shape let the Centre take over the taxation of
Electricity and divide the yield among the four States of Maharashtra —
(1) Bombay, (2) Western Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra, (4) Eastern
Maharashtra according to their needs.

It will also ease the financial strain that the three Maharashtras are
likely to suffer on account of the separation of Bombay.

IV

UNITED OR DIVIDED ?

I have said that Bombay be given a new area and made into a separate
City State.

There now remains the question of how to deal with the rest of the
Maharashtra. I have suggested that the rest of the Maharashtra should be
divided into three States.

From very ancient times Maharashtra has been divided into three States.

Maharashtra first comes to be known in history during the time of Ashok.
It is mentioned in Mahavansa in connection with reference to the missionaries
sent by Ashok to different parts of India for the purpose of propagating
Buddhism. But thereafter the Pali literature speaks of Trai Maharashtrika
or three Maharashtras. It means that from very ancient times there have
been three Maharashtras. My proposal is not therefore new.

The distribution of population, area and revenue would be as shown in
Table (on page 160).

The accompanying map No. 5 will show the area and boundaries of each
of the three divisions.

160

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

For the present, from the point of view of area and population there is
nothing to complain against the three divisions.

From the earliest times they have always been spoken of as Trai
Maharashtras.

The division does no wrong to the language principle. In fact if all the
three Maharashtras have the same language it can help to develop the
Marathi language if it is worth their while to do so.

The question of viability I will consider later on. I propose to deal with
it separately in a special chapter.

Bombay was then unknown. Otherwise it would have been the fourth
part of Maharashtra.

Of the remaining three parts what I call Eastern Maharashtra is already
a separate State. All that required is that it should be allowed to remain
separate. It has got a well-established administration system, a well-
established revenue system and a well-established judicial system. It has
been separated from the trammels of the Hindi-speaking people.

The only problem that remains is how to divide the area covered by the
Maharashtra which is part of the present Bombay State and the Marathwada
of the Hyderabad State.

Instead of forming a merger of the two into one and joining it to the third
which I call Eastern Maharashtra, why not divide the Maharashtra part
of Bombay and Marathwada into two equal States ? This is my scheme.
I transfer six districts of Maharashtra part of the Bombay State and make
them part of Marathwada. ( See Map No. 5). The distribution of the area
and population of the three Maharashtras are shown below :

The Population Area and Revenue of the Three Maharashtra
States will be approximately as follows

Name of State

Total

Population
(in crores)

Total Area
(in sq.
miles)

Total

Revenue

Total

Expenditure

WESTERN MAHARASHTRA

1,26,77,316

30,028

26,24,20,441

not known

CENTRAL MAHARASHTRA

1,24,09,044

55,482

21,63,80,095

not known

EASTERN MAHARASHTRA

80,27,130

39,004

9,41,11,012

not known

Total ..

3,31,13,490

1,24,514

57,29,11,548

I will now proceed to state my reasons in support of my plan.

I have said that Maharashtra has always been divided into three. This is
a historical argument. It at least shows that the tradition, the way of life
and the social and economic condition of what is called United Maharashtra
is not one. Those who are in a hurry to have United Maharashtra

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

161

may not take it seriously. But there are other arguments which arise out of
the present condition and which cannot be ignored. I mention a few.

My first argument is that a single Government cannot administer such
a huge State as United Maharashtra.

The total population of the Marathi-speaking area is 3,30,83,490. The
total area occupied by the Marathi-speaking people is 1,74,514 sq. miles.
It is a vast area and it is impossible to have efficient administration by
a single State. Maharashtrians who talk about Samyukta Maharashtra
have no conception of the vastness as to the area and population of their
Maharashtra. But why there should be one single Maharashtrian State. I
am quite unable to understand. To have a separate Maharashtra State is
one thing. To have a single. Maharashtra State is quite a different thing.
I am in favour of a separate Maharashtra, separate from Gujarathis and
separate from Hindi-speaking people. But I am unable to understand why a
free Maharashtra should be made into one single State. The Maharashtrians
are not planning to declare war on U.P. and therefore they need not have
a common front.

Even from the point of view of Marathas why should there be this
consolidation ? What affiliation has a Maratha of Satara got with the
Maratha of Aurangabad ? What affiliation has a Maratha of Nasik got with
the Maratha of Ratnagiri? What care and interest a Maratha of Satara is
going to bestow upon the problems of the Maratha of Aurangabad ? What
care and interest a Maratha of Nasik is going to bestow upon the problems
of the Maratha of Ratnagiri ? The consolidation has no meaning and can
serve no purpose.

All Maratha Ministers in the present Bombay Cabinet come from Satara
District or Nasik District. There is none from Konkan.

The second consideration is the economic inequality between the three
parts of Maharashtra. Marathwada has been solely neglected by the Nizam.
What guarantee is there that the other two Maharashtras will look after
the interests of what I call the Central Maharashtra ?

The third consideration is industrial inequality between the three parts
of Maharashtra. Western Maharashtra and Eastern Maharashtra are
industrially well developed. What about the Central Maharashtra ? What
guarantee is there of its industrial development ? Will Western Maharashtra
and Eastern Maharashtra take interest in the industrial development of
Central Maharashtra ?

The fourth consideration is the inequality of education between Eastern
and Western Maharashtra on the one hand and Central Maharashtra on the
other. The inequality between them is marked. If the Central Maharashtra
goes under the Poona University its destiny is doomed.

162

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I am greatly worried about Marathwada. It was hitherto part of the Nizam’s
Territory for the last 200 years. The Nizam had criminally neglected this
area. He took no interest in it. There is not a mile of canal irrigation in
Marathwada. There is hardly a high school in taluka places in Marathwada.
There is hardly a youth in Nizam’s public service from Marathwada. I speak
from knowledge and experience. People are not only down and out they
are ignorant. They are being grabbed by highly advanced people on both
sides. When their avenues of employment are closed there will be further
degradation in their position.

I shudder to think what would happen when Marathwada goes under the
Poona University. The standard of education in the schools and colleges under
the Poona University is so high that hardly any boy from Marathwada can
hope to pass the examination. It is quite possible that with the madness for
united Maharashtra there will develop a madness for a single and common
University.

The creation of United Maharashtra will be followed by the onrush of
Poona and Nagpur Brahmins in Marathwada to pick up the jobs.

There is a further reason why Maharashtra should be divided into three.

The total strength of the Bombay Legislative Assembly is 315. Out of
them 149 members are Marathi-speaking. The total strength of the Bombay
Legislative Council is 72 ; out of them 34 are Marathi-speaking. Obviously
some Marathi-speaking person should have been the Chief Minister of the
Bombay State. Mr. Hirey stood up as a candidate for the Chief Ministership.
But he was made to sit down by the Congress High Command. Not
only was Mr. Hirey made to sit down but he was forced to move that
Mr. Morarji Desai be made the Chief Minister. What a humiliation for a
Maharashtrian leader ! And what value does the Congress High Command
attach to the political intelligence of Maharashtrians ?

The same incapacity of the Maratha Ministers is clear from the division
of subjects referred earlier.

It is obvious from the facts given above that the Marathas are lacking
in political talent. There is no man of eminence among them such as Tilak,
or Gokhale or Ranade. The Maharashtrian today counts for nothing. The
Congress Maharashtrian counts for much less in the Congress. The non-
Congress Maharashtrian also counts for nothing. It is therefore absolutely
essential to train up Maharashtrians in political life. This political training
has become fundamental because of the transfer of power to the masses. The
word Marathas is used in two senses. In one sense it means all those who
speak the Marathi language. In another sense it means all those who are
Marathas by caste. They are all spoken of as Marathas. But they all fail to
make the distinction between Marathas i.e. those who speak the Marathi
language and Marathas i.e. those who are Marathas by caste.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

163

Those who are going to rule Maharashtra are not Marathas by speech but
Marathas by caste, notwithstanding the hopes of the Brahmins. Now it cannot
be denied that Marathas are politically the most backward community. It is
fundamental that they should receive political training. If there is only one
Maharashtra only one Maratha can be trained as Chief Minister and five or
six as Ministers. On the other hand if there are three Maharashtra States,
three Marathas can find training as Chief Ministers and thirty Marathas
can get training as Ministers. We can do real service to ourselves by helping
to educate our Masters.

The only way of educating the Marathas is to give them more field for
developing their abilities and exercising their abilities. Only the creation of
three Maharashtras can do this.

There is a story which is very appropriate to the occasion. The father of
a young girl had taken her for an outing in a jungle. She found that under
big trees there stood small shrubs. Finding this to be uniformly so, she
asked her father why these small shrubs under the big trees do not grow.
The father not being a botanist could not give an answer. So he said : Oh !
I do not know. He, however, felt that the question was very significant. He
was a Professor in a college. Next day he went to the college and put the
question to his Botanist colleague. The Botanist replied : Why ! The answer
is simple. The big trees use up all the sun’s rays to themselves. The shrubs
do not get any rays. That is why they do not grow. The Marathwada people
must not forget the moral of this story.

The only argument in favour of United Maharashtra is that it is like a
meeting of the two brothers Rama and Bharat in Ramayana after a long
separation. It is a silly argument, not worth consideration.

There are some Maharashtrians who are satisfied with some kind of
Political Treaty with Western Maharashtra guaranteeing some concessions.
Treaties are like scraps of paper. They cannot be enforced. Instead of political
treaties which nobody can enforce is it not better to have power in one’s
own hands ?

What a poor and wretched show by Maharashtrians in the Government
of Bombay ! If this is the show that the most advanced and educated part
of Maharashtrians can make, what can be expected from the people of
Marathwada ?

I advise the people of Marathwada or Central Maharashtra to have a
State of their own so that they have power in their own hands to improve
their own lot.

V

RECLAMATION OF LOST TERRITORY

Should all the Marathi-speaking people be huddled up under one State ?
Or should they be divided into two or more States.

164

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

How to dispose of the remainder when Bombay is separated is the next
question. The remainder consists of two parts : (1) Gujarath, (2) Maharashtra.

I am concerned with Maharashtra.

While creating Linguistic Provinces the Commission has given over
Marathi-speaking areas to non-Marathi-speaking areas. The number of such
excluded areas are as follows :

1. Belgaum Taluka with the City of Belgaum.

2. Khanapur Taluka.

3. Chikori Taluka including Nipani.

4. Supa Taluka.

5. Karwar Taluka.

6. Nilanga Taluka in Bidar.

7. Ahamadpur Taluka in Bidar.

8. Udgir Taluka in Bidar.

9. Rajgir Taluka in Adilabad.

10. Some portion from Vidarbha given to the neighbouring Hindi-speaking
State.

The Maharashtrians excluded from Maharashtra come to 13,89,648 in
terms of population.

The Commission in retaining the mixed State of Bombay had to secure
two most important objects. One is not to allow Bombay to go into the hands
of Maharashtrians. This the Commission did by creating a mixed State. The
second thing they had to do was to secure equality between Maharashtrians
and the Gujarathis. The necessity of equality between the two in the future
Legislature of the Bombay State as planned by the Commission had become
urgent as the members of Karnatak in the old Assembly on whom the
Gujarathis depended for their majority were to disappear in the new Karnatak
State. This the Commission did by clipping the wings of Maharashtra by
handing over Marathi-speaking people to non-Marathi-speaking States. There
seems to be no other reason for this political vandalism.

This wrong done by the Commission to Maharashtra must now be remedied
and fortunately it can be undone. The proposal of a mixed State is gone and
there is no necessity for equality between Maharashtrians and Gujarathis.

CHAPTER 8

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ISSUE

For the sake of the reader I summarize below the principles which should
underly the creation of Linguistic States which are already enunciated in

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

165

the foregoing pages but which lie about scattered. These principles may be
stated as below :

(1) The idea of having a mixed State must be completely abandoned.

(2) Every State must be an unilingual State. One State, one language.

(3) The formula one State, one language must not be confused with the
formula of one language, one State.

(4) The formula one language, one State means that all people speaking
one language should be brought under one Government irrespective
of area, population and dissimilarity of conditions among the people
speaking the language. This is the idea that underlies the agitation
for a united Maharashtra with Bombay. This is an absurd formula
and has no precedent for it. It must be abandoned. A people speaking
one language may be cut up into many States as is done in other
parts of the world.

(5) Into how many States a people speaking one language should be cut up,
should depend upon (1) the requirements of efficient administration,
(2) the needs of the different areas, (3) the sentiments of the different
areas, and (4) the proportion between the majority and minority.

(6) As the area of the State increases the proportion of the minority
to the majority decreases and the position of the minority becomes
precarious and the opportunities for the majority to practise tyranny
over the minority become greater. The States must therefore be small.

(7) The minorities must be given protection to prevent the tyranny of the
majority. To do this the Constitution must be amended and provisions
must be made for a system on plural member constituencies (two or
three) with cumulative voting.

PART IV

THE PROBLEMS OF LINGUISTIC STATES
CHAPTER 9
VIABILITY

Will the three Maharashtrian States be viable ? Will their Revenue be
sufficient to meet their expenditure ? Such a question is bound to be asked.

It is not that such a question can be asked about Maharashtra alone. It
can be asked about many other States in India.

I give four statements relating to Part A States, Part B States and the
Central Government from Part III of the Report of the Taxation Inquiry
Committee presided over by Dr. John Mathai ( See Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7).

166

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

From these statements the following propositions stand out :

(1) That upto a certain year in the life of the States there was no deficit.
They were all viable. It is only after Congress came into office that States
ceased to be viable.

(2) That since the Congress came into office the Excise Revenue has begun
to dwindle. It has gone down to a vanishing point.

(3) That Income Tax and Sales Tax have increased enormously.

These are the causes which explain why States have ceased to be viable.

The Excise Revenue is being sacrificed for a false idealogy which has no
meaning, no sense and no reality.

In regard to the Policy of Prohibition followed by the Congress, the following
conclusions can be drawn without fear of challenge :

(1) An enormous amount of revenue is sacrificed for nothing.

(2) People have not ceased to drink. There is enormous amount of illicit
manufacture of liquor which is being sold to the public clandestinely.

(3) The money lost by Government is picked up by the illicit manufacturer.

(4) Prohibition has demoralized Society. Formerly only male members of
the family drank because they alone could go to the liquor shop. Now
illicit liquor manufacture has become a Home Industry. Liquor being
now made at home both men and women drink.

(5) In addition to the loss of revenue on account of Prohibition Government
has to undertake increased expenditure on Police to enforce Prohibition
which, however, they never do.

What good is this Prohibition which does not prohibit ? The Congress threatens
to extend this Prohibition to the whole of India. God bless the Congress! It is
said that God first makes them mad whom. He wishes to destroy. God is doing
the same with Congressmen.

It is enough for me to say that Congress cannot have both viability and
Prohibition.

Coming to the Land Revenue it could certainly be increased. But the Congress
is afraid to touch the agriculturist for fear of losing votes. It is therefore raising
money from the Sales Tax and the Income Tax both of which fall so heavily on
the urban classes as is apparent from Table No. 6.

It is therefore clear that viability is no problem. Only the Congress has to
revise its Taxation Policy.

Viability is a question of capacity to bear taxation and will to tax. There is
enough capacity. What is wanted is will.

The whole of the Indian Taxation system requires to be changed. It is a
question of altering the Constitution. I cannot deal with it now. I must reserve
it for another occasion.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

167

CHAPTER 10

MAJORITIES AND MINORITIES

Politics is nothing if not realistic. There is very little in it that is academic. It
is therefore follows that before passing any judgement on any scheme of politics
it is essential that one must consider the ground plan.

Someone may ask what do I mean by “Ground Plan”. To me the ground plan
means the social structure of a community to which the political plan is sought
to be applied.

It needs no argument to show that the political structure rests on the social
structure. Indeed the social structure has a profound effect on the political
structure. It may modify it in its working. It may nullify it or it may even make
a mockery of it.

In the case of India the social structure is built up on the caste system, the
special product of Hindu civilization and culture.

The caste system is so well known that one need not wait to explain its
nature. One can straight proceed to show what effect it is likely to have on
Linguistic States.

There are some peculiar features of the caste system which must however
be noted —

(1) Castes are so distributed that in any given area there is one caste which
is major and there are others which are small and are subservient to
the major caste owing to their comparative smallness and their economic
dependence upon the major caste which owns most of the land in the
village.

(2) The caste system is marked not merely by inequality but is affected by
the system of graded inequality. All castes are not on a par. They are
one above the other. There is a kind of ascending scale of hatred and a
descending scale of contempt.

(3) A caste has all the exclusiveness and pride which a nation has. It is
therefore not improper to speak of collection of castes as a collection of
major and minor nations.

I am sorry, I cannot illustrate these points by reference to facts and figures.
The census which is the only source of information on these points fails to help
me. The last census omits altogether the caste tables which had been the feature
of the Indian census ever since its birth. The Home Minister of the Government
of India who is responsible for this omission was of the opinion that if a word
does not exist in a dictionary it can be proved that the fact for which the word
stands does not exist. One can only pity the petty intelligence of the author.

The consequences of the caste system on politics are quite obvious. The
interesting part is to see what effect it has upon elections which is the foundation
of Representative Government which is reared up on a system of single member
constituencies.

168

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The effects may be summarized as follows :

(1) Voting is always communal. The voter votes for the candidate of his
community and not for the best candidate.

(2) The majority community carries the seat by sheer communal majority.

(3) The minority community is forced to vote for the candidate of the
majority community.

(4) The votes of the minority community are not enough to enable
the candidate to win the seat against the candidate put up by the
majority community.

(5) As consequence of social system of graded inequality the voter of the
higher (major) communities can never condescend to give his vote to
a candidate of a minority community. On the other hand the voter of
the minority community who is socially on a lower level takes pride
in giving his vote to the candidate of the majority community. That
is another reason why a candidate of a minority community loses
in election.

The Congress always wins, so it is found. But no one asks why does
the Congress win ? The answer is that Congress is very popular. But why
is the Congress popular ? The true answer is that Congress always puts
up candidates which belong to castes which are in the majority in the
constituencies. Caste and Congress are closely linked. It is by exploiting the
caste system that the Congress wins.

These evil consequences of the caste system are sure to be sharpened
by creation of Linguistic States. Minority communities may be crushed. If
not crushed they may be tyrannized and oppressed. They are sure to be
discriminated against and denied equality before law and equal opportunity
in public life.

The history of nations and the changes in their idealogies have been well
traced by Lord Action :

“In the old European system, the rights of nationalities were neither recognized
by governments nor asserted by the people. The interest of the reigning families,
not those of the nations, regulated the frontiers, and the administration was
conducted generally without any reference to popular desires. Where all liberties
were suppressed, the claims of national independence were necessarily ignored,
and a princess, in the words of Fenelon, carried a monarchy in her wedding
portion.”

Nationalities were at first listless. When they became conscious :

“They first rose against their conquerors in defence of their legitimate
rulers. They refused to be governed by usurpers. Next came a time when
they revolted because of the wrongs inflicted upon them by their rulers.
The insurrections were provoked by particular grievances justified by
definite complaints. Then came the French Revolution which effected

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

169

a complete change. It taught the people to regard their wishes and wants as

the supreme criterion of their right to do what they like to do with themselves.

It proclaimed the idea of the sovereignty of the people uncontrolled by the past

and uncontrolled by the existing state.”

The caste is a nation but the rule of one caste over another may not be
admitted to be the same as the rule of one nation over another. But supposing
the case is not carried so far but is limited to majority and minority even
then the question remains : What right has the majority to rule the minority?

The answer is that whatever the majority does it is right. What complain
the minorities can haye ?

People who rely upon majority rule forget the fact that majorities are of
two sorts : (1) Communal majority and (2) Political majority.

A political majority is changeable in its class composition. A political
majority grows. A communal majority is born. The admission to a political
majority is open. The door to a communal majority is closed. The politics
of a political majority are free to all to make and unmake. The politics of a
communal majority are made by its own members born in it.

How can a communal majority run away with the title deeds given to a
political majority to rule ? To give such title deeds to a communal majority is
to establish a hereditary Government and make the way open to the tyranny
of that majority. This tyranny of the communal majority is not an idle dream.
It is an experience of many minorities. This experience to Maharashtrian
Brahmins being every recent it is unnecessary to dilate upon it.

What is the remedy ? No doubt some safeguards against this communal
tyranny are essential. The question is : What can they be ? The first
safeguard is not to have too large a State. The consequences of too large
a State on the minority living within it are not understood by many. The
larger the State the smaller the proportion of the minority to the majority.
To give one illustration — If Mahavidarbha remained separate, the proportion
of Hindus to Muslims would be four to one. In the United Maharashtra
the proportion will be fourteen to one. The same would be the case of the
Untouchables. A small stone of a consolidated majority placed on the chest
of the minority may be borne. But the weight of a huge mountain it cannot
bear. It will crush the minorities. Therefore creation of smaller States is a
safeguard to the minorities.

The second safeguard is some provision for representation in the
Legislature. The old type of remedy provided in the Constitution were
(1) certain number of reserved seats and (2) separate electorates. Both these
safeguards have been given up in the new Constitution. The lambs are shorn
of the wool. They are feeling the intensity of the cold. Some tempering of
the wool is necessary.

170

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Separate electorates or reservation of seats must not be restored to. It
would be enough to have plural member constituencies (of two or three)
with cumulative voting in place of the system of single-member constituency
embodied in the present Constitution. This will allay the fears which the
minorities have about Linguistic States.

PART V

THE NEED FOR A SECOND CAPITAL

CHAPTER 11

INDIA AND THE NECESSITY OF A SECOND CAPITAL

A WAY TO REMOVE TENSION BETWEEN
THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH

Can India afford to have one Capital ? That India has now one capital does
not close the question. If the Capital of India is not satisfactorily located,
now is the time for considering the question.

Since the departure of the British, India has only one capital and that
is Delhi. Before the British, India has always had two capitals. During the
Moghal period, India had Delhi as one Capital and Shrinagar in Kashmir
as another Capital. When the British came they too had two capitals,
one was Calcutta and another was Simla. Even when they left Calcutta
for Delhi, they retained Simla as their summer Capital. The two capitals
maintained by the Moghuls and by the British were the results of climatic
conditions. Neither the British nor the Moghuls were able to live in Delhi or
in Calcutta continuously for 12 months. The summer months in Delhi were
unbearable to the Moghuls. They made Shrinagar their second capital for
summer months. The summer months in Calcutta were equally unbearable
to the British. They, therefore, established a second capital. To these climatic
conditions must now be added three other conditions. There was no popular
Government when the Moghuls ruled or when the British ruled. Now we
have popular Government and the convenience of the people is an important
factor. Delhi is most inconvenient to the people of the South. They suffer
the most from cold as well as distance. Even the Northern people suffer in
the summer months. They do not complain because they are nearer home
and they are nearer the seat of power. Second is the feeling of the Southern
people and the third is the consideration of Defence. The feeling of the
Southern people is that the Capital of their Country is far away from them
and that they are being ruled by the people of Northern India. The third
consideration is of course more important. It is that Delhi is a vulnerable
place. It is within bombing distance of the neighbouring countries. Although
India is trying to live in peace with its neighbours it cannot be assumed
that India will not have to face war sometime or other and if war comes,
the Government of India will have to leave Delhi and find another place for

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

171

its location. Which is the place to which the Government of India can
migrate ? A place that one can think of is Calcutta. But Calcutta is also
within bombing distance from Tibet. Although India and China today are
friends, how long the friendship would last no one can definitely say. The
possibility of conflict between India and China remains. In that event Calcutta
would be useless. The next town that could be considered as a refuge for
the Central Government is Bombay. But Bombay is a port and our Indian
Navy is too poor to protect the Central Government if it came down to
Bombay. Is there a fourth place one could think of ? I find Hyderabad to be
such a place. Hyderabad. Secunderabad and Bolarum should be constituted
into a Chief Commissioner’s Province and made a second capital of India.
Hyderabad fulfils all the requirements of a capital for India. Hyderabad is
equidistant to all States. Anyone who looks at the table of distances given
below will realize it :

To Bombay

From Delhi
Miles
798

From Hyderabad
Miles
440

To Calcutta

868

715

To Madras

1,198

330

To Karnul

957

275

To Trivendrum

1,521

660

To Patiala

124

990

To Chandigarh

180

1,045

To Lucknow

275

770

From the defence point of view it would give safety to the Central
Government. It is equidistant from all parts of India. It would give satisfaction
to the South Indian people that their Government is sometimes with them.
The Government may remain in Delhi during winter months and during
other months it can stay in Hyderabad. Hyderabad has all the amenities
which Delhi has and it is a far better City than Delhi. It has all the grandeur
which Delhi has. Buildings are going cheap and they are really beautiful
buildings, far superior to those in Delhi. They are all on sale. The only thing
that is wanting is a Parliament House which the Government of India can
easily build. It is a place in which Parliament can sit all the year round
and work, which it cannot do in Delhi. I do not see what objection there
can be in making Hyderabad a second capital of India. It should be done
right now while we are reorganising the States.

Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Bolarum should be constituted into a second
capital of India. Fortunately, it can be very easily done with satisfaction to
the whole of South India, to Maharashtra and to the Andhras.

This is another remedy for easing the tension between the North and
the South.

PART VI

MAPS

MAP NO. 1

map No. 1

(VISION CM UTTAR PRADESH

_ WESTERN 01 Tar PRADESH

CENTRAL UTTAR PRADESH

EASTERN UTTAR PRADESH

MAP No, 3

DIVISION OF BIHAR

NORTH

BIHAR

SOUTH BIHAR

MAP No. 4

DIVISION OF MADHYA PRADESH

MAP No. 5

DIVISION OF MAHARASHTRA

PART VII

STATISTICAL APPENDICES

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

183

es

ptH

-p

«

-p

jfl

a

o

Oh

S3 -

<D O

a *

<b 2 co
■■ S3

SI

R cd

a
0
u
0
0
• Tj

0 ^ .s

0 d ,

£ 0 M LO 03 +

0 0 G

S s a ^

^ o

V, cs £

os 1-1 a> co

0 CO $h 05

§ ?h 05

TO 0 — -i

^ C2

?h i 0 52

O 0 0 3 05

. _£ CUD 1-1

o ^ if sU ^

►7 0 O q **0

z a g 5 ^

CO « g

CO

*4H

O 0 iH

. M co

O 05

*7 0 i—l

CO

X

0

►^5

l-H

Q

&

co

cd

2

be

a

cd

X

S3

ai

o

CO

o

3

H

J

?H

0

"co

n

a

$!

fO

6

£

p

cd

0

a

2

0

pC

4J

Q

3

co

T3

S3

0

CO

a

£

cd

2 0
p 0

b£ •£

£
o

g CO 4P
H 05 «

CO

^ Si ^

° * s
^ §> a

^ 5 CO

Cu

0

CUD

03

3

be

£

Gj

hP

+

O

1 — 1

t>

CM

+

O

LO

+

o

05

+

CD

00

00

i — I

o

00

00

t>

CO

05

(M

00

CD

X

CD

CM

CD

»o"

+

P

c D

oo"

co"

cd"

t>"

o

oo

CO

o

CM

CO

O

05

i— i

O

M

CM

CM

l>

CD

o"

LO

+

+

cm"

+

+

05 "

+

O

T— 1

i — i

LO

Od

i — I

i — I

05

O

LO

LO

00

CD

i — 1

CM

(M

CD

05

(M

CO

co

05

CD

t>

°°.

CO

CD

05

<n

M

of

+

CD*'

L-O'

co"

1 — 1

t>"

oo"

cm"

cm"

CD

t>

CO

CM

o

CM

CD

LO

t>

00

T— 1

CD

1—1

CM

i—l

LO

t>

P'

<J5

+

+

1 — 1

+

+

+

cm"

+

+

+

+

t>

(M

00

00

o

CD

00

CO

00

CM

t>

00

LO

t>

05

1 — 1

(M

LO

LO

LO

LO

X

CD

M

LO

t>

t>"

CD*'

CD*'

oT

cm"

t>"

cm"

05 "

co"

00

CM

o

00

CM

LO

0

t>

00

t>

CD^

05„

<o

CO^

CD^

co^

05 "

p'

cm"

i — i

1 — 1

i — 1

co"

cd"

Th

i— i

CM

CO

t>

i—l

t>

CO

i—i

lO

t>

00

CM

t>

CD

i — I

t>

i — i

CO

1—1

05

05

05

i— 1

lO

05

00

o

CO

CD

LO^

LO

lo"

lo"

oT

co"

05"

cd"

LO"

cd"

1 — 1

(M

t>

LO

CM

1—1

00

LO

O

lO

LO

05^

05^

05

1—1

CM

CD

CD„

lo"

co"

i—l

1 — 1

t>"

co"

co"

1 — 1

i—i

CO

CM

CO

t>

(M

LO

i — I

O

1 — 1

t>

CO

o

00

i—l

CM

05

t>

t>

CM

LO

LO

CM

CD

CD

CM

M

00

CM„

°°

o'

CD*'

P

o"

t>"

o"

i—l

cm"

i-H

LO"

CO

CO

1—1

CD

LO

LO

CO

CD

05

t>

t>

rH

1—1

CO

o

CD^

t-H

CD

1—1

1—1

t>"

co"

00"

CD

i — 1

(M

CO

LO

(M

o

00

1 — 1

t>

LO

i—l

CM

1—1

CM

1—1

T— 1

fH

3

P

£

cd

2

£
i— i

«+H

o

0

be

cd

2

be

£

cd

P

be _S
cd ^

p £
be cd

5 '3

2 0

P £

CB

CB 0

0 be
be cd
cd o

? Se

J?

2 cd

u

'2

CB

<

CM

CB

0

be

cd

3

be

£

cd

c

cd

CB

0

be

cd

3

be

£

cd

c

0

5h

cd

w

TO

1 — H

.a

r->

PQ

S3

T3 "

3 S3

cd

a

0

A

OS aS

0

0

O

S3 ^

0

0

.o

rO

H

3

a

.3 ’>

CO

H

1— 1

c4

co Q

CB

0

be

cd

3

be

C

23

cd

"2

■>

cd

fH

P

CB

0

be

cd

2

be

£

cd

T5

0

a

0

CM

CO

CO

p

05

LO

p

0

be

cd

3

be

£

cd

cd

fH

P

03

CM CO

<1

. N.W. language .. 1 231,581 184,368 207,049 + 22,681 + 47,213

APPENDIX 1 — contd.

184

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

CD

c/3

0

hJD

cd

2

bJD

£

£

cd

0

a

o

rH

3

H

o

£

05

01

CD

1 — 1

05

01

lO

i— 1

ID

1—1

t>

GO

05

00

t>

CO

T— H

CD

CD

t-H

05_

LO

00"

id"

1

cd"

O"

co"

01

t >

CO

01

1—1

01

05

CO

<M

ID

1— 1

+

+

+

+

+

+

1—1

CO

+

+

i—i

t>

00

CD

1—1

01

0

05

T— 1

1—1

t>

GO

LO

CO

05

t>

CD^

00

T— 1

O

t>

D

go'

00 "

00 "

+

cd"

O"

co"

0 "

O"

00

t-H

CO

01

1 — l

05

01

01

(N

1 — 1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

01

+

CD

CD

CO

CD

CD

05

01

CD

CD

CO

0

CD

t>

05

t-H

01

O

O

CD

CD

05„

00

t>

o'

of

oT

cd"

ID"

0l"

0l"

05"

t>

01

05

01

01

O

CO

CN

ID

CD^

co

CO

(N

T— 1

co"

ID

01

IO

05

ID

O

00

01

t>

1 — l

LO

00

1 — 1

CD

05

t-H

CD^

CO

LO

LO

<0

CD_

00

t-H

i — i

o'

ID"

id"

t-H

05"

00

0

CD

1—1

t-H

t-H

o

co

LO

01

CO

r— 1

T— 1

oT

(N

CM

1 — 1

05

CD

CD

05

CO

CD

05

CO

CO

O

CD

t>

05

1 — 1

00

05

r— 1

0

05^

O

°l

00

CO

t>"

-3

LO"

cd"

ID"

05 "

ld"

0l"

IO

ID

O

01

01

01

0

LO

CO

1—1

CO

•H*

<N

i — 1

1 — 1

CD

(M

CO

ID

05

(N

T— 1

CD

t>

O

i-H

1 — 1

1 — 1

05

0

0

H->

cd

fH

0

bo

b

H->

C/3

<3

c/3

cd

1

0

0

bJD

0

0

bJD

a

cd

c/3

0

bJD

0

0

bjo

£

3

bo

£

cd

1 — H

c

1

03

0

bo

cd

0

bo

0

CO

0

'M

4—

co

0
0
1— 1

?H

O

£

03

05

0

- 0

0

5h

0

O

cd

0

£

<

05

0

a

0

fH

b

W

i— H
£
•S
’3

0

1 — H

u

"3

cd

Q

£

rS

05

0

£

cd

3

cd

CO

cd

CO

0

3

"3

cc

0

bo

cd

3

bo

a

C/3

£

b

O

C/3

0

bo

G

cd

C/3

0

O

m

0

bo

cd

r 0

03

05

'rH

a

£

05

cd

'

cd

fH

0

(H

03

£

cd

£

3

H-3

D

Q

HH

cd

<1

pq

O

cd

bo

bo

0

£

S

r— 1

01

CO

0

P

1—1

01

CO

cd

1

O

0

cd

>,

PQ

O

3

X3

O

X

CO

CD

•XJ

e

.o

a

'tj

s

S’

e

>»

o

T3

>

"3

T3

a

2

Cl

el

T5

■+J -(

03 3

O

q h

oj

than another.

^Includes Hill and aboriginal subsidiary languages (27,841).

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

185

APPENDIX 2

Area and Population of States of United States of America

Name of State

1

1. Alabama

2. Arirona

3. Arkansas

4. California

5. Colorado

6. Connecticut

7. Delaware

8. Florida

9. Georgia
10 Idaho

11. Illinois

12. Indiana

13. Jowa

14. Kansas

15. Kentucky

16. Louisiana

17. Maine

18. Maryland

19. Massachusetts

20. Michigan

21. Minnesota

22. Mississippi

23. Missouri

24. Montana

25. Nebraska

26. Nevada

27. New Hampshire

28. New Jersey

29. New Mexico

30. New York

31. North Caroline

32. North Dakota

33. Ohio

Area

Population

sq. miles

Est. 1944

2

3

51,609

2,818,083

113,909

638,412

53,102

1,776,446

158,693

8,746,989

104,247

1,147,269

5,009

1,176,807

2,057

283,802

58,560

3,367,217

58,876

3,223,727

83,557

531,573

56,400

7,729,720

36,291

3,419,707

56,280

2,269,759

82,276

1,774,447

40,395

2,630,194

48,523

2,535,385

33,215

793,600

10,577

2,127,874

8,257

4,162,815

58,216

5,429,641

84,008

2,508,663

47,716

2,175,877

69,674

3,589,538

147,138

464,999

77,237

1,213,792

110,540

156,445

9,304

457,231

7,836

4,167,840

121,666

532,212

49,576

12,632,890

52,712

3,534,545

70,665

528,071

41,222

638,667

186 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 2—contd.

Name of State Area

sq. miles

Population
Est. 1944

1

2

3

34. Oklahoma

69,919

2,064,679

35. Oregon

96,981

1,214,226

36. Pennsylvania

45,332

9,247,088

37. Rhode-Island

1,214

778,972

38. South Carolina

31,055

1,923,354

39. South Dakota

77,047

558,629

40. Tennessee

42,246

2,870,158

41. Texas

267,339

6,876,248

42. Utah

84,916

606,994

43. Vermont

9,609

310,941

44. Virginia

40,815

3,119,115

45. Washington

68,192

2,055,378

46. West Virginia

24,181

1,715,984

47. Wisconsin

56,154

2,975,910

48. Wyoming

97,914

257,108

APPENDIX 3

The population of the Bombay City according to the Communities
given in the Census of 1941 is as follows:

Hindu

8,99,398

Scheduled Castes

1,21,352

Muslims

2,51,518

Indian Christians

1,22,683

Anglo-Indians

8,787

Parsees

58,813

Sikhs

2,418

Jains

33,281

Buddhists

912

Tribes

4,606

Others

29,847

Total

1,489,883

The area of the Bombay City according to the Census of 1941 was 30 sq. miles.

<3

CO

X

I— I

P

X

w

Oh

Oh

<

a3

a

T3

a

X

-p

.2 £

a

_o

’■P

a

M

W)

!+H

O

a

js

o

>

<D

-a

H

(N

05

u

a

’>

0

p

Oh

1

Sh

0

-M

P

2 £

as

«

a

a

a

o

O

cc

<1

a

_o

'-p

.2

"S

a

>

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

co

CO

CO

00

+

*

0

04

O

0

CD

04

O

CO

4^

t>

LO

CO

O

CD

LO

O

CO

05

05

05

05

1—1

P

cd

00

00

1— 1

CO

^b

1— 1

0

O

CD

^b

OO'

CO

Oh

05

(N

cd"

LO"

04

LO"

LO"

+

cd"

t>"

00 "

1 — 1

1—1

bo

CD

co"

1 — 1

04

1 — 1

04

1 — 1

04

C4

a

1

04

+

1 — 1

1

05

CO

+

+

1

+

+

+

i—l

+

P

.2

CO

CD

LO

1 — 1

O

O

00

t>

05

Tb

LO

'43

fd

00

O

05

Tb

LO

t>

05

1—1

t>

1 — 1

04

2

cd

CO

cd

T— 1

°o

CD„

1—1

OO'

LO

LO

‘2

£je

00

t>"

i—l

Tb"

cd"

LO"

0 "

cd"

1 — l

co"

rH

co"

t>"

cd

05

05

^b

LO

CO

O

LO

CD

^b

>

'a

04

1 — H

1

2

i — i

+

1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

co

05

i—l

05

*

1 — 1

CD

t>

CD

04

1 — 1

05

t>

O

co

LO

05

O

00

04

O

CO

rH

05

cd

LO

CD

05

CD„

t>

GO

oq.

CD

OL

^b

°°.

Oh

be

t>

lo"

LO"

05"

LO

cd"

05 "

05"

1 — 1

cd"

04 "

04"

co"

o

CO

T— 1

t>"

O

05

CD

04

co

04

^b

04

a

CD

CD

^b

04

1—1

w

LO

CM

05

co

1— 1

LO

O

04

^b

O

LO

O

00

CO

04

05

1—1

fd

CD

t>

CO

04

04

LO

00

co

00

t>

LO

00

cd

CD

t>

LO^

CD

05

00

OD

CD

05^

CD

Oh

be

CD

CD*'

t>

04 "

05"

cd

05 "

04"

rH

1 — 1

00 "

05"

^ — i

i — i

t>

CO

0

0

00

CO

t>

O

CO

a

04

00

LO

<0

CD

CO

i-H

04

LO

rH

a

i — i

1—1

1 — 1

i— i

04

04

rH

*

CO

00

CD

04

co

04

+

LO

05

CO

04

CD

LO

LO

CO

CO

05

£

i

t >

i—l

^b

04

CO

O

1—1

CD

0

t>

0

t>

'2

hr

CO

CO

n

o'

(N

co"

O

t>"

O"

co"

O"

00 "

05 "

cd"

LO"

LO

^b

CO

LO

04"

05

T— 1

i-H

^ — 1

LO

CD

rH

i— 1

1—1

i—l

LO

t>

rH

04

T— i

4^

,

•N

•N

+

+

+

+

+

0

X

O

i— H
+

rH

+

+

+

+

+

CO

CD

^b

t>

^b

1 — 1

00

t>

CD

CD

CO

05

O

£d

CO

CO

05

05

CD

CO

04

t>

CO

CO

O

05

cd

<0

Tb'

1 — l

1 — i

(O

04.

1—1

LO~

°l

O^

t>

Oh

be

co"

^b"

04"

04"

LO"

C35"

LO"

04"

05 "

0 "

LO"

t>

LO

04

05

04

04

CD

O

00

Tb

CD

^b

a

05

LO

^b

1 — l

rH

l—l

H

CO

05

co

O

rH

i—l

^b

O

CO

t>

04

04

00

xb

1— ^

dd

^b

t>

04

O

CD

O

CD

O

LO

CO

1 — 1

cd

<o

CO

LO^

05„

t>

i—l

1 — 1

°0

0 ^

04^

&

CO

cd"

t>"

co"

05"

O"

05"

cd'

00"

cd'

^b"

t>"

1 — 1

04

1 — 1

CO

LO

co

05

CO

0

00

a

CO

t>

CD

1— 1

CD

CO

04

CO

LO

rH

rH

a

i — i

i—l

1 — 1

+

HH

i—i

CD

^b

t>

CO

04

CD

[>

CD

05

05

^b

i — i

CO

04

0

O

CD

CO

0

CD

1 — l

04

04

£

'

<o

°l

CO

t>

CD

t>

LO^

0 ^

cd

co

CO

1—1

i—l

co"

cd"

t>"

LO"

05"

t>"

LO"

co"

^b"

rH

be

CM

^b

t>

05

05

04

1 — 1

00

04

rH

00

^b

(N

LO

LO

04

1 — 1

1—1

rH

-HH

Oh

+

+

+

+

0

X

O

i—l

+

+

+

+

c n

+

+

+

+

0

-HH>

0

0

cd

g

cd

-+J

CQ

0

^3

0

’>

0

u

2

fH

cd

►>

Oh

O

0

0

p

'>

o

i—l

c n
0
o
p

*>

£

£

CO

0

+->

£

2

cd

Id

be

cd

S

cd

po

u

PL

Id

cd

u

0

PQ

p

0

Jh

O

ce

'r£

cd

0

"3

p

1— 1
Id

f-H

0

P

0

be

0

rH

0

0

p

cd

>

>

fH

0

§

rH

0

a

X

Oh

0

cd

CO

!P

Sh

P

P

cd

1 — 1

a <c

cd

g

0

Ph

Sh

+3

*s

CO

0

P

0

0

0

cd

0

fH

0

PL,

GO

M <C

pq

pq

PQ

O

Q

pq

O

H

0

187

APPENDIX 3A —contd.

188

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

T— 1

05

7 — 1

CD

05

CD

05

LO

rH

03

05

CD

00

03

CO

t>

05

03

t>

LO

X

X

LO

o

CO

rH

03

o^

t>

O

OD

00

CD

05

+

CO

+

x"

o'

i — i

o'

t-H

o"

t>"

cd"

T — 1

03

rH

t>

CO

03

03

LO

05

+

+

rH

03

rH

rH

1

+

+

1

1

+

+

+

1

rH

cd

i — i

0b

03

o

t>

O

X

CD

LO

00

t>

03

0b

05

o

t>

0b

00

0

t>

X

LO

05

[>

CO

LO

T— 1

LO

CO

CO

rH

CD„

02

CD^

03,

rH

^b"

+

cd'

|

+

x"

|

x"

L/f

a

t>"

o"

of

of

+

0b

rH

o

X

LO

CD

1

1

+

t-H

+

PQ

+

+

+

+

+->

m

o

03

o

CD

CO

LO

CD

03

CO

0

X

03

CD

LO

CD

i — i

CO

03

0b

0b

LO

0

05

05

05

X

00

03

LO

CO

rH

O

03

05

0LJO

X

CD

of

o'

t>"

0b

of

0b"

o'

co"

0

l>

of

LO"

CD

CD

oo

oo

CO

CD

T5

CD

rH

05

LO

03

LO

CO

Q5

x"

05

X

rH

CD

rH

0

00

CD

LO

CD

CD

t>

rH

LO

t>

C5

05

03

X

CO

CD

05

05

CO

LO

CD

00

03

0

X

O

LO

CD

00

rH l

O

CO

°0

CD„

LO_

°°

rH

1— 1

03^

CD

rH

x"

CD*'

x"

rH

of

rH

rH

t>

of

cd"

LO"

l>"

CO

CD

rH

1 — 1

00

CD

05

05

05

03

X

rH

03

LO

t-H

03

rH

Tb

X

00

LO

o

t>

03

LO

O

CD

O

X

03

X

00

03

CO

00

05

CO

00

0b

03

LO

X

Tb

CD

05

05

00

<d

03^

CD

CD_

05^

CO

CD^

rH

CD

05

o'

lo"

o’

0b"

03

+

of

cd"

cd"

lo"

x"

^b"

t>"

CO

LO

rH

03

CD

CD

03

rH

CD

+

1

i — i

CD

1

05

1

LO,

+

+

+

1

+

1

1

rH

|

r— 1

CO

rH

03

03

rH

LO

03

LO

rH

rH

rH

o

CO

CD

00

00

rH

03

0b

rH

O

CO

i — 1

X

LO

X

(N

t>

CD

LO

03

oo

0b

CX)

CD^

CD„

X

0L

rH

x"

of

o'

t>

CD*'

of

of

CO

lo'

t>"

x"

05

05

05

o

CO

05

CD

X

LO

LO

03

t>

CO

03

X

rH

X

t>

rH

rH

rH

05

03

00

LO

CO

O

05

LO

LO

X

03

X

X

rH

0b

CD

LO

o

LO

00

03

rH

05

rH

05

o

CD

cd

LO

°0

03

0b

CO

i — I

<0

X

t>

05

X

X

LO

x"

cd"

rH

of

rH

rH

LO

of

cd"

of

cd"

cd"

CO

CD

i — 1

i — i

00

CD

CO

rH

o

03

05

CD

rH

03

CD

CO

rH

X

03

^b

^b

00

05

t>

CO

03

rH

CD

03

CO

o

X

05

X

00

t>

00

O

00

t>

CD

05

CO

05

05

CO

^b

CD

CO

t>

rH

t>

[>

0b

03,

t>

t>

X

X

x^

rH

X

lO

CO

i — 1

x"

0b"

CO

t>

of

cd”

cd”

x"

CO

rH

CO

03

03

T 1

i — 1

CO

CD

T 1

X

rH

X

CD

05

+

+

+

+

1

rH

LO

X

<o

03

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 — 1
1

i — i
1

0

u

m

0

CQ

■

05

0

0

CQ

'rB

0

O

P-l

CQ

0

£

0

0

0

H0

0

0

CQ

0

0

0

CQ

?H

0

02

O

H

0

CQ

0

o

0

V

0

0

43

0

B

*

in

0

rH

.2

£

to

a3

w

n

cS

3

02

T5

0

02

0

0

m

0

0

i— i

0

rH

05

0

0

0

0

Madras

m

0

0

0

■>

o

rH

P0

"0

0

CQ

" £h

o

0

0

Coorg

0

0

i—t

0

PQ

A

4-3

rH

o

£

o

fH

P*

$ £
3

H

CL,

0

-M

0

-M

CO

H

B

m

13

£

O

S

a

ctf

r>

0

'S'

0

P0

fH QJ

05 4J

>> «

X £

0

bJD

<

0

a

0

Ph

0

*3

U

0

riP

s

0

0

0

bJD

<

in

0

-h>

0

m

rO

0

'S 4

3

Ph

co

0

03

0

0

SP

£

0

bJD

<1

0

l-H

0

5 h

0

co

0

co

0

-0

0

i— i
0
0

0

riP

03

£

0

03

in

0

0

i— i
0

Sh

03

X

0

0

§

0

'rH

0

o

0

0

in

0

o

0

1— 1

0

riP

riP

CO

4-J

*-H>

0

‘S

PP

0

a

"d

0

0

’cQ

0

0

O

S

CQ

0

0

riP

*

+P»

o

0

0

O

03

0

0

r0

g

0

0

o

S_|

H-5

C+H

0

03

CQ

0

SP

0

HJ

0

O

-H>

X

CQ

0

0

f-i

riP

0

bJD

Sh

yp

o

0

0

.2

in

H-P>

O

0

riP

5h

bJD

0

03

§

jP

0

0

rH

P

o

0

CQ

0

0

SP

0

>

0

0

Sh

’>

Eh

O

?H

03

ft

!P

rH

0

«s

0

CQ

B

0

0

?H

o

0

O

bJD

yp

0

03

0

0

riP

H

0

X

0

i

1

0

riP

4-5

Provincial/State Revenue

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

189

O

o

^ — 1

02

CO

00

CD

CO

o

LO

02

LO

o

CM

CM

i-H

LO

CM

5

0)

o

CO

LO

02

i-H

s

1—1

o

i— H

1— H

i-H

CM

i-H

rH

CD

ft

lO

o

CD

00

CM

i — 1

CM

i — i

CO

00

CD

P

P

o

LO

CM

i — I

CM

LO

02

CO

o

02

02

o

i— H

1— H

CM

rH

1—1

0)

02

o

i — 1

O

00

02

02

co

CO

o

CO

t>

cm

rH

o

02

00

i—l

CO

4H

00

00

o

CO

i-H

i-H

O

CO

02

r— 1

• pH

0

u

P

t>

CO

o

o

CM

00

1.5

0.9

O

o

3.6

0.1

00

CM

rP

CD

t>

o

co

CQ

CO

02

rH

CM

o

t>

00

CO

00

i—l

LO

CO

CM

o

02

CD

t>

i — 1

i — 1

02

LO

i— 1 1

CD

o

CM

1 — 1

(N

02

rH

o

rH

o

rH

LO

CM

02

CM

O

LO

H

o

CM

oo

LO

02

CM

00

o

02

02

CO

LO

CM

02

CO

CO

l>

o

00

t>

CD

02

i—l

CD

CD

CM

LO

i— i

i—l

i-H

LO

lO

i — I

CM

o

02

i — 1

00

02

LO

00

oo

CM

CM

CO

02

LO

i— H

00

o

0

CO

o

CO

LO

CM

t>

o

CD

LO

1 — 1

a

P

02
1— 1

02
i— H

co

i— H

T— H

CO

CM

M

02

00

o

00

CO

02

CO

t>

LO

1 — 1

o

CO

t>

o

LO

o

CD

LO

LO

CO

00

CO

CD

LO

CO

02

1— 1

o

t>

CD

i—l

CM

Sh

CO

02

t>

CM

1— H

i— 1

u

I>

CD

CD

CO

O

1— 1

i—i

CO

h-

CO

T5

CO

00

02

CD

00

1 — 1

LO

CD

o

1— 1

1 aJ

CD

CM

LO

CO

o

1— 1

o

t>

CM

o

CM

£

CO

02

t>

CM

T— 1

1— 1

rH

CM

00

00

CD

LO

CM

02

CM

o

CD

1—1

o

CD

LO

O

O

rH

rH

00

02

LO

o

i — i

o

LO

02

CO

CM

LO

CM

i— H

i— H

i— 1

X

-H>

T3

0

ft

£

0

0

X

0

P4

cO

4-3

P

P

hJD

P

bJD

£

0

?H

0

3

0

o

CO

CC

"cc

CC

rH

o3

c

p

p

X

<Ph

CC

-4-3

0

>

0

riP

X

P

0

p

0

P

H

CC

0

CC

?H

o

Pi

p

o

0

rH

ftH

o

s

o

4-3

0

s

p

T3

0

5

5

0

£

r— 1

+3

£

0

o

to States.

4-3

0

>

0

pH

13

0

>

0

PS

p

CC

*0

X

0

0

4-3

to

ft

s

.2

P

fH

CC

'S)

o

m

I— H

P

rH

0

P

0

^p

cc

+3

cc

0

u

a

.2

'-4-3

a3

CO

13

4-3

'ft

cO

0

(net).

p

_o

*+3

£

o

fti

CC

4-3

P ^
P ^

biD d-

.2

«4H

o

0

rH

P

3

• i— >

^4-4

o

0

u

p

o

P

0

0

o

0

r£

X 1

H

H

m

CO

M

o

1— 1

Q

m

U1

APPENDIX 4—contd.

190

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

o

1— 1

LO

00

CO

05

05

o

LO

00

03

CO

t>

t>

o

CD

LO

00

05

o

LO

LO

0

CD

CD

d

CO

03

CM

o

LO

o

i — i

T— 1

T— 1

oi

rH

0

0

0

0

CO

43

0

0

-0

X

0

-0

CO

a

o

O

0

0

0-H

0

0

0

03

0

0

-0

0

P

0

0

.bo

of Ci

‘in

CO

0

CO

"S

0

.a

0

0

0

0

'-0

CO

-0

-0

P3

0

P

0

0

0

03

0

O

43

0

CO

o

0

in

O

43

+■>

0

"u

X

0

t>

CO

pq

-0

0

0

H0

0

CD . .
CO CO

05

0
=2
m
0
0
0
bo CO
0
0
0

bjo

.s

"0

0

I— I

O

X

0

^5

0

02

a

o

pq

o

-e 0

fn o
0

^ 0

CO 0
0 0

-0

0

LO

co 3

0 05

"0 t-H

0 t3

0 s
a 0

05
0 CO

^ 00
0 CO

05

0

0

pq

0

<2

0

CO

o

43

0

cS

CO

0

0

0

bJD

0 fe

1 £
" X

03

03 03
' 0
0

-0
0

m

03

05

0

cS

CO

0

0

0

bJO

0

0

pq

0

cS

CO

0

CO

o

0

0

pq

CO

H0

0

0

pq

0

0

pq

0

0

pq

0

0

LO

CO

LO

05

0

cS

CO

0

0

0

bJO

o
. 0
0H

0

0

0

-0

"S

0

0

0H

X

0

0

.0

'-0

0

0

bo

.a

*-0

0

0

03

0

03

0

0

4h

0

0

0

0

'w

0

CO

0

0

A

X

0

bo

0

43

0

o

bo

.a

"-0

0

0

03

0

03

0

0

d

0

0

0

0

0

04

0

CO

0

0

<8

0

0

03

0

0

0

0

0

0

03~

0

03

0

i— i
0
X
0

0

0

0

CO

03

0

<3

0

0

0

0

-0

0

0

bo

0

43

0

-0

0

0

03

0

0

0

0

0

0

CO

03

0

0

CO

0

0

t 0
r— I
02
0
Ph

0

0

43

o
. 0
0

CO

0

„0

0

CO

0

0

0

Eh

0

cS

0

0 03
0 0
03

CO r-«

CO _0
O V
0 0
bo .0

X

0

p

X

H

P

P

<3

-p

fl

s

0

o

u

<

V

s

fl

>

OJ

<A

fl

o

cc

OJ

-P

es

P>

m

S3

-p

Sp

0

fl

0

us

0

Pp

X

p

es

HP

V

too

T3

S

M

CC

w

<i

£

pq

LO

LO O

4 H

io rn

05 O

05

LO

q

rH

LO

H

rH

CO

LO

t>

tH

LO

PS

CO

CO

05

i—l

T

05

03

CD

i — i

00

t>

00

t>

o

CO

d

CD

o

CO

CO

CO

0

43

0

03

0

o

03

oo

o

03

03

LO

i-H

CO

CO

i—l

o

CO

d

d

o

03

LO

03

03

i — i

03

03

CO

x

LO

|

05

rH

O

o

o

LO

q

1— 1

LO

03

03

LO

d

CD

03

LO

1— 1

o

iH

CO

CO

?

T

LO

05

rH

t>

00

05

LO

i— 1

co

o

03

i— i

LO

CO

i— i

CO

o

i — i

05

LO

03

03

T

05

o

,0

0

CO

0

f 0

0

CO

0

0

0

bo

.a

03

0

X

0

0

«+3

0

03

0

o

+ +

0>

2

Pi

1 1

in

£

a>

2 Ph

Ph

>

a p

0

a>

0

PS

H m

m

and to Revenue Reserve Funds).

APPENDIX 6

Budgetary Position of the States on Revenue Account

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

m

0

0

P.

ft

Ph

«H

o

cc

0

rH

o

Ph

O

05

w

<!

£

H

§

Ph

LO

LO O

4 w

LO rQ

05 S-

*? H

CO :
lo K
05 y:

rH

CD to 05 05
t> CD 00 GO

H t> lO lO

CM CM

i — I LO T sf l T sf H
CM CO CD CD

c<i id co co

I I

CM

GO

t-H

GO

CM

CM

GO

LO

CO

CO

O

o

+ +

o

CO

t>

t>

ID

T—l

05

CD

o

CD

ID

O

o

t-H

rH 1

T

T

CO

CO

LO

tO

CO

05

goo

+ +

a

o

M

LH

m

Ph

f 0

L-H

in

ft

0

Ph

5P m
ft T 5

-0

0

X

0

I

0
>
?H

0

m

05 't!

O §

05 °

5-1 ^ ^

3 + +

2g <0 <0 *

a 0 £ £ t5

05 05 ft ft G

> ft Jh Sh CC

0X00
Ph w m m

in

u

a

0

i*

73

0

HP

0

t> 0

X ^
w m
Q ~
Z »
w 2
Ph 3

Cl h
<! £
05

PS

a

L

HP

ft

0

o

bo

T3

3

L5

CD

3

0

be

o

CD

CD

t>

GO

05

to

O

O

t>

05

05

rH

o

to

h—N

tH

tH

cd

w

LO

g

o

rH

O

o

o

CM

05

CO

o

CO

o

to

o

o

05

GO

GO

t>

CM

05

CD

CD

CO

t>

CO

rH

o

05

i — l

CM

GO

CD

rH

o

rH

to

rH

CM

d

CO

LO

tH

rH

CM

CM

rH

o

t>

CM

CM

05

o

to

05

r>

to

CM

rH

CM

o

CM

05

o

00

05

CM

o

CO

CO

CO

GO

GO

CO

CO

rH

ro

05

CD

to

to

GO

t>

CM

05

CO

O

GO

CD

CM

o

05

rH

O

tH

rH

rH

00

CO

05

O

rH

CD

CM

t>

05

rH

05

to

t>

O

CD

rH

CO

rH

CM

o

CO

CM

00

GO

rH

o

GO

rH

o

GO

GO

GO

CM

o

CD

GO

CD

o

o

CO

T 1

rH

rH

rH

CO

CO

05

rH

rH

CO

to

rH

tH

CO

CO

GO

rH

00

to

CO

00

o

oo

CO

rH

rH

o

to

to

05

o

05

CO

CO

t>

CM

rH

CO

CM

CM

rH

CM

05

rH

rH

o

05

o

CD

t>

GO

CO

O

rH

00

CM

CD

d

oo

CO

rH

c

o

^ ^

4-^

0

m

HP

ft

0

ft

g

ft

0

rO

'C

m

m

g

HP

£

0

HP

Ph

ft

o

O

0

0

0

0

Ph

x

Ti

Ph HP

to:

*

0

0

0

0

05

p

Pi

HP

0

O

0

ft

0

HP

ft

0

in

*0

Q

• 2
>5 '0

hp Ph
0 0

m

T— 1
0

H

>

0

Ph

m

a

ft

o

.2

HP

0

Ph

X

0

03

£

o3

m

HP

13

o

HP

in

m

0

X

O

Oh

Ph

Ph

HP

ft

T5 g

x a

'ft m
o3 o

Ph Ph

o

P

0

O

0

Ctf O

EH

OHOOfflO

T 5

T 3

fl

3

T 5

S

T 3

cd

O

Sh

T 5

3

CQ

c

r d

rt

3

T 5

fl

cd

r d

3

2

bo

191

of the Indian Union by Communities

192

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

fl

.2

ft

JS

3

a

o

ft

co

CM

CO

Od

ID

ID

i — 1

CM

CD

GO

CO

i—l

t>

00

tH

GO

CM

Od

i — i

ID

i — 1

o

CO

CO

GO

a

i—l

i— H

rH

cm"

cm"

cm"

Eh

CO

Od

r— 1

1 — 1

o

o

ID

Od

i — I

Od

CD

GO

CO

CM

iH

00

CM

CO

00

oj

i—l

Od

CO

o

ID

CO

CO

Od

§

t-H

rH

CO

CM

CM

co

t>

CO

CM

Od

rH

CD

o

00

iH

£

CM

CD

Od

CM

1 — 1

iH

ID

CD

Od

CO

O

Od

ID

CD

oo

t>

iH

fH

1

CO

CM

ID

GO

tH

ft

co

o

iH

CD

CM

CO

o

00

i — 1

CM

CO

ID

CO

i — 1

i — i

ID

1 — 1

CM

CM

CM

GO

o3

Gd

CD

o

O

ID

O

o

CO

CM

i—l

£

t>

o

ID

CD

CM

1 — 1

ID

tH

Ph

t—H

rH

rH

tH

CO

CD

o

O

i — 1

ID

CM

tH

CO

00

CD

oo

H

0

rP

0

CD

CO

CD

i — 1

CO

ID

Od

CD

CD

Od

00

CD

tH

CN

iD_

Od

tH

§

t>

o"

cd"

oo"

CM

i — I

id"

tH

co"

o

i—i

iH

iH

tH

CO

ID

iH

CD

CO

Od

CO

o

ID

o

00

CO

£

Od

Od

O

CM

00

CD

CM

00

00

00

Od

o

O

CD

CM

Od

CM

Od

GO

iH

CO

fH

0

ID

O

iH

CM

o

CM

00

CO

CM

rH

CO

CM

iH

co

CO

CD

CO

CO

Od

tH

CD

ID

I>

GO

ID

t>

o

00

o

t>

ID

cd

CD

O

CM

CD

GO

CM

CD

i — i

Od

a

0

i — I

i — i

ID

CM

iH

-H

0

Eh

o

CO

t>

00

o

ID

Od

CO

CD

ID

GO

LO

CD

i — I

CM

CO

CO

o

O

0

cd

O

CM

00

i—l

ID

tH

CD

CM

Od

2

§

i—l

r— 1

CD

CM

rH

T3

CO

CM

CD

o

iH

00

O

ID

iH

CD

£

ID

CM

CM

CO

CM

tH

CD

iH

o

CO

t—H

lO

LD

Od_

CD

CO

CO

CO

00

0

Oh

go"

CM

co"

iH

iH

rH

co"

iH

co

o

O

CO

o

CM

t>

CM

Od

CM

CO

o

O

o

CM

o

i — I

CD

h-

iH

ID

o d

CO

o

CM

O

GO

00

CM

GO

CD

O

CM

£

ID

o

CD

ID

GO

Od

CO

t>

a

EH

CM

iH

iH

CM

iH

O

CM

CO

ID

ID

00

CD

O

rH

t>

r5

0

o

00

CO

ID

CM

CD

O

i — i

CM

ID

CM

GO

1— 1

00

ID

00

CO

GO

O

t>

CO

§

ID

1 — 1

Od

CD

00

Od

CD

O

CM

i—l

rH

CM

iH

Ph

CO

t— i

t>

CD

CD

GO

ID

00

Od

O

£

00

CO

Od

00

CD

CO

CO

i — i

CO

oo

CO

GO

CO

CD

ID

Od

CD

t>

ID

tH

pH

Od

Od

iH

CD

CM

CD

Od

CO

ft

CM

CM

ID

iH

CO

tH

iH

rH

03

ft

m

O

CD

CJ

pi

i—i

od

”>

O

rD

03

o3

rH

o3

Madras

Bombay

£

Qd

PQ

-H>

CC

Q)

£

rH

PM

Qd

H

’£

'S’

p

ft

CC

Ctf

H

Bihar

C.P. & Be

Assam

Orissa

Ajmer

£

o3

£

£

T3

3

Islands.

Bilaspur

APPENDIX 8 —contd.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

193

i — 1

CO

o

CO

CO

LO

CO

CO

CO

CO

00

t>

CO

t>

CM

LO

co

CM

1 — 1

i — 1

LO

CM

1 — 1

05

CM

CO

i—i

CM

i—l

i—l

CM

LO

CM

CM

O

CM

i — i

1 — 1

05

05

h-

CO

co

LO

CO

05

r— i

CO

CO

o

co

o

h-

oo

t— 1

LO

LO

t>

1 — 1

i — 1

co

LO

00

CO

CM

h-

00

CM

LO

i— 1 1

1—1

CM

CO

CM

CM

o

CO

CM

i — i

1—1

o

t>

LO

05

o

LO

LO

05

CO

CO

CO

LO

o

T— 1

i — I

i — 1

o

CM

CO

CM

05

05

LO

CO

05

00

t-H

i—l

CO

i—(

00

CM

LO

O

o

1—1

CM

CO

05

LO

05

CM

CO

CO

00

00

CM

CO

1 — 1

CO

LO

o

05

CO

1 — 1

LO

LO

05

l>

00

co

t>

t>

CM

00

1—1

i—l

1—1

CO

r— 1

1—1

CO

CO

CO

CO

05

o

CO

LO

1 — 1

CM

1 — 1

i — I

LO

CM

LO

CO

LO

CM

CO

00

00

LO

00

o

CO

CM

i—l

CO

05

CM

00

i— 1

LO

CO

CO

LO

o

LO

CO

05

o

CO

o

CO

o

CM

1—1

CM

CO

T—l

1—1

CO

LO

T—l

05

CO

CO

t>

1— 1

CM

LO

T—l

i—l

LO

CM

O

LO

05

LO

CM

CO

1—1

LO

00

00

t>

CM

CM

CM

t>

i — i

o

h-

h-

o

CO

LO

CM

h-

CO

O

00

05

00

T-H

CM

co

CO

CO

00

O

05

00

t>

05

CO

CO

CM

CM

LO

05

CM

CO

o

LO~

1—1

CO

T 1

1 — 1

O

CO

05

CO

CO

CM

o

00

CM

CO

CM

05

1—1

CM

LO

O

05

1 — 1

O

CM

CO

LO

00

i—l

T—l

CM

i—l

i—l

CM

CO

i — I

LO

CO

LO

05

05

o

CO

CM

i—l

CM

CM

05

l>

1—1

CO

05

i — 1

i — l

CO

CM

O

CM

i — i

CM

CO

00

CO

CM

i—i

CM

CM

T—l

i—i

CM

t>

1 — 1

t>

CO

05

CO

05

CM

05

t>

CM

t>

00

CO

LO

co

CM

CO

CM

CM

1 — 1

05

CO

1 1

CO

CM

1 — 1

o

i—i

i—i

CM

CO

CM

CM

LO

05

1—1

CM

1 — 1

CO

LO

CO

CM

CO

i— i

CO

1—1

o

h-

l>

t>

1—1

CM

CM

CO

t>

CO

CO

CO

LO

O

LO

i—l

LO

05

05

CO

CO

CM

CO

CM

CM

t>

LO

CM

t>

05

00

LO

T—l

CO

r— 1

co

T—l

CO

t>

i—l

CO

CM

O

CM

05

LO

LO

05

CM

05

00

00

05

CM

o

CO

i—i

05

CO

CO

05

i—l

CO

CO

CO

O

CO

CO

CM

LO

CM

CM

oo

t>

oo

00

oo

CO

1—1

t>

i — i

CO

1 — 1

CO

i — i

CO

oo

CM

co"

LO

05

i—l

00

LO

CM

CO

05

1—1

LO

CO

CO

05

CM

05

CO

CO

O

1 — 1

CO

i — i

1 — 1

CO

CM

00

LO

05

CO

CM

CM

t-H

LO

05

05

LO

LO

LO

1—1

o

LO

CO

O

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

1—1

i—l

&

a

05

-JH)

rU

CO

cd

C5

05

fH

O

-o

cd

o

Bhopal

Coorg

Cutch

Delhi

hn

r— H

a

A

o

cd

S

ffi

Manipur

Tripura

cd

rH

Ph

cd

£

>

X

m

c tf

r£

cd

§

P.E.P.S.U.

Rajasthan

Saurashtra

Q5

Jh

O

C5

£

cd

>

cd

?H

H

Hyderabad

Kashmir

Mysore

194

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 9

Statistics of Chief Castes

Caste

Strength

Where chiefly found

Agri

265,285

Bombay.

Ahar, Ahir, Gopi, Goshi, Goala,

14,170,032

Most Provinces.

Golla, Gowari, Gaura,
Kavundan Idaiyan.

Ahom

249,434

Assam

Arain, Kunjra, Koeri, Kachhi,

5,048,849

Most Provinces.

Murao.

Arora, Bhansali, Lohana ..

1,499,407

Baluchistan, Bombay, N.W.F.P.
Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir,
W. I. States.

Babhan, Bhuinhar

1,113,541

Bihar and Orissa, U.P.C.P.

Baidya

110,739

Bengal.

Baiga, Bhaina, Binjwar, Bharia,

1,050,760

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, C.P.,

Kadar, Bhumia, Bhunjia,

C.I., Rajputana, Sikkim.

Bhuiya,Ghatwar,Naiya, Pao.

Bairagi

838,285

Most Provinces.

Baloch

1,333,215

Baluchistan, Bombay, Punjab,
N.W.F.P.

Baniya, Bhatia, Chetti, Khatri,

5,176,383

Most Provinces.

Kamati (Vaishya).

Banjara, Lumbadi, Labana,

951,022

Bombay, C.P., C.I., Gwalior-

Lamani.

Hyderabad, Mysore, Raj
putana.

Baria, Bhalia, Chodhra,

3,418,643

Most Provinces.

Gedia, Khant, Koli, Kotwal,
Naikda, Patclia, Patanwadia,
Thakarda, Talabda, Valvi.

Bauri, Bagdi ..

1,671,481

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,
Rajputana.

Bawaria, Bavuri, Baori, Bagari,

309,720

Most Provinces.

Vagri, Badhik.

Bayar, Barmanu, Dhangar,

811,746

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, U.P.,

Musahar.

Central India.

Bedar, Boya

991,536

Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad,
C. P.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

195

APPENDIX 9—

contd.

Caste

Strength

Where chiefly found

Bhandari. Idiga, Iruvan,
Siyal

.. 1,253,403

Bihar and Orissa, Cochin,
Mysore, Madras, Travancore,
Rajputana, Baroda.

Bhangi

.. .. 797,599

Ajmer-Merwara, Bombay, U.P.,
Baroda, Gwalior, Rajputana,
W. I. States.

Bharwad, Dhangar,

1,816,283

Most Provinces.

Gadariya Kuruba.

Bhat, Barhmabhatt,

397,274

Most Provinces.

Char an Jasondhi.

Bhatra, Pardhana, Parja

353,183

Madras, C.P. and Berar.

Bhil, Barela Bhilala.

1,454,144

Most Provinces.

Dhanka, Mankar,
Mavchi, Pathia,
Rathia, Tadvi.

Bhisti, Bhoi, Dhimar,

3,575,941

Most Provinces.

Jhinwar, Kahar,
Machhi, Tiyar.

Bohra

.. .. 212,752

Bombay, Baroda, C. I., Gwalior,
C.P., Rajputana, W.I. States
Travancore.

Brahman

.. .. 15,207,277

Most Provinces.

Brahui

.. .. 224,415

Baluchistan, Bombay.

Chamar, Khalpa, Samagara

.. 12,195,516

Most Provinces.

Chasa, Raju

835,236

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

Chasi, Kajbartta (Mahisya)

.. 2,381,266

Bengal.

Chuhra

.. .. 721,981

N.W.F. Prov. Punjab, Delhi.

Dhanuk, Kandra

758,671

Bihar and Orissa, Bengal,
C.P., C.I., Ajmer-Merwara,
Rajputana, Delhi, Gwalior.

Dhobi, Parit, Vanran,

3,161,428

Most Provinces.

Velutte-dan.

Dom, Dombar, Bansphor

907,776

Most Provinces.

Dharkar, Dholi.

Dhor, Chakkliyan

671,926

Bombay, C.P., Madras, Cochin,
Travancore, W.I. States.

Dusadh

.. .. 1,400,878

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, U.P.

196

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 9 —contd.

Caste

Strength

Where chiefly found

Fakir

820,577

Punjab, U.P., C.P., Rajputana
C.I., Agency Gwalior.

Garo, Hajong, Kachari, Mech,

695,648

Assam, Bengal.

Rabha.

Gond, Dhanwar, Kalota,
Kamar, Karwar, Kolam,
Kondh, Konda, Dora, Koya,
Maria, Muria Nagarchi.

4,719,222

Andamans and Nicobars,
Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa, Bombay, C.P.,
and Berar, Madras, U.P.
C.I. Hyderabad, Gwalior,
Rajputana.

Gujar

2,430,669

Ajmer-Merwara, Bombay,
C.P. and Berar, Delhi,
N.W. Frontier, Punjab,
U.P., C.I., Rajputana.

Guria, Halwai

246,583

Bihar and Orissa, U.P., C.I.,
Rajaputana, Gwalior.

Hajjam, Ambattan, Bhandari,

3,725,860

Most Provinces.

Kelashi, Mhali, Nadig,
Nai “Naibrahman”, Napit,
Nhavi, Pandithar, Vellakat-
talavan.

Hari

418,830

Assam, Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa Madras.

Jat

8,377,819

N.W. Frontier, Punjab, U.P.
Kashmir, Rajputana.

Jogi .. ..

111,586

Gwalior, C.I., Agency,
Rajputana, Jammu and
Kashmir.

Kaikolan

419,078

Madras, Cochin, Travancore.

Kalar

1,017,179

Ajmer-Merwara, Bengal,
C.P. and Berar, U.P.,
Baroda, C.I., Gwalior,
Hyderabad, Rajputana,
Sikkim.

Kallavan, Maravan

948,630

Madras, Cochin, Travancore.

Kamalan, “Viswabrahman”,

7,735,393

Most Provinces.

Panchal.

Karen

1,367,673

Burma.

Kayastha, Karan, Prabhu ..

2,946,228

Most Provinces.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

197

APPENDIX 9-

-contd.

Caste

Strength

Where chiefly found

Kewat, Kaibartta

1,813,278

Assam, Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa, C.P. and Berar, U.P.

Kolita

109,250

Bihar and Orissa, C.P. and
Berar.

Koshti, Devang

921,201

Bengal, Bombay, C. P. and
Berar, Madras, C.I.,
Hyderabad, Mysore, Gwalior,
Cochin.

Khandayat, Paik

1,060,587

Bihar and Orissa, Bengal,
Madras.

Kisan

431,044

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, U.P.

Khasi, Synteng

232,595

Assam, Andamans and Nico-
bars.

Khatik, Chick

412,520

U.P., C.P., Bengal, Delhi,
Ajmer-Merwara, Baluchistan
Hyderabad, Rajputana
Gwalior.

Kori, Katia, Balai, Chaupal,

2,165,953

Most Provinces.

Jugi.

Korku, Korwa

246,765

Bihar and Orissa, C.P., C.I., U.P.

Kumhar, Kusavan

3,580,143

Most Provinces.

Kunbi, Karbi, Kurmi,

11,082,108

Most Provinces.

Kshatriya, Kapu, Kapewar,
Raddi, Vakkaliga, Vellala.

Labbai

374,829

Coorg, Madras, Mysore,
Travancore.

Lodhi

1,742,470

C.P. and Berar, U.P., C.I.,
Bengal, Delhi, Rajputana,
Hyderabad, Gwalior.

Lushei, Sokte, Thado

192,520

Assam, Bengal, Burma.

Mahar, Mehra, Dhed, Vankar,

4,729,405

Most Provinces.

Holiya, Pulayan, Cheruman.

Mala

852,050

C.P. and Berar, Madras.

Mali, Phulmali, Saini,

2,332,143

Most Provinces.

Malakar

198 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 9 —contd.

Caste

Strength

Where chiefly found

Mallah, Goriya, Gonrhi

894,951

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,
U.P., N.W. Frontier, C.I.,
Gwalior, Rajputana,

Mang, Megh, Meghwal, Madgi,
Madiga.

2,556,765

Most Provinces.

Mapilla

139,621

Travancore, Cochin, Coorg,
Burma.

Maratha

6,113,061

Bombay, C.P. and Berar,
Gwalior, Hyderabad,
Baroda, Mysore, C.I.

Meithei

330,545

Assam, Burma.

Mina, Meo

1,110,479

Most Provinces.

Mirasi

283,637

Punjab, N.W. Frontier, Raj-
putana, Ajmer-Merwara,
Jammu and Kashmir, C.I.,
Gwalior.

Mochi, Jingar, Dabgar

1,026,405

Most Provinces.

Momin

3,122,100

Most Provinces.

Munda, Mawasi, Ho, Kol,
Kharwar, Kharia, Bhogia,
Bhumji, Kora.

2,315,276

Bihar and Orissa, Bengal,
C.P. and Berar, C.I., U.P.,
Rajputana.

Naga

272,529

Assam, Burma, Gwalior.

Namasudra

2,265,476

Assam, Bengal.

Nayar

1,550,641

Madras, Travancore, Cochin.

Nepali

371,906

Most Provinces.

Nuniya, Od, Beldar, Bind,
Rehgar.

561,926

Most Provinces.

Oraon

1,021,334

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,
C.P. and Berar.

Pallan

825,224

Madras.

Pan, Panka, Ganda, Paidi,
Baraik.

1,241,322

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,
C.P. and Berar, Madras,

C.I.

Paraiyan, Turi

1,277,365

Madras, Bombay, Baroda,
Cochin, W.I. States, Coorg.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

199

APPENDIX 9 —concld.

Caste

Strength

Where chiefly found

Pasi, Arakh

1,743,166

Bihar and Orissa, U.P.,
Bengal, C. I.

Oinjara, Sarahira, Dhunia

565,254

U. P., Bombay, Rajputana
Gwalior, N.W. Frontier,
Punjab, C.I., Mysore,
W.I. States, Jammu and
Kashmir.

Rajbhar, Rajjhar, Rajwar Bhar.

630,708

U. P., Bihar and Orissa,
Bengal, C.P. and Berar.

Rajput

10,743,001

Most Provinces.

Santal, Saunta, Karmali

2,524,472

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,

C.I.

Saun

480,131

U.P., C.I.

Sawara, Saonr, Savar, Saharia

675,628

Bihar and Orissa, C.P.,
Madras, U. P., C. I.,
Rajputana, Gwalior.

Shaha, Sunri

533,825

Bengal, Madras, Sikkim.

Shan

900,204

Burma.

Silpkar

333,036

U.P.

Singpho, Kachin

156,253

Burma, Assam.

Talavla, Dubla

229,190

Bombay, Baroda, W.I. States.

Tamboli, Barai

452,423

Bengal, U.P., C.I., Rajputana,
Gwalior, Baroda.

Tankkshatriya

926,274

Most Provinces.

Tanti, Tatwa, Bhulia, Chadar,
Sali.

1,132,563

Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,
Bombay, C.P. and Berar.

Telaga

1,669,559

C.I.

Teli, Tili, Chakkan, Ganig,
Chanchi, Vaniyan.

5,024,496

Madras, Hyderabad, Coorg.

Thakkar, Rathi, Rawat, Kanet,
Ghirath.

714,503

Bombay, Punjab, C.I.,
Gwalior, Jammu and
Kashmir, Rajputana.

APPENDIX 10

200

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

V)

fl

3

0

O

-p

„0>

Jw

0

fl

.0

+a

Jfl

ft

o

cu

0>

>

+a

Jfl

CO

f-H

0

o

LO

o

LO

LO

LO

CD

1 — 1

i — i

^ — i

oq

i—i

43

o

1— 1

(M

Oq

1 — 1

1—1

LO

’"H

CO

CTi

.S

05

t>

CD

00

t>

oq

00

LO

CO

i—i

CO

oq

T— i

3

CO

CO

1 — 1

^ — i

t>

£

CO

CO

Q

<>q

43

CO

CD

00

CD

o

i—l

CO

oq

i—i

oq

1—1

**""*

43

00

o

Oq

05

^ — 1

oq

00

00

co

m

1—1

i—l

i-H

rH

oq

1—1

1— t

0

Q

$2

3

S

0

o

05

CO

CM

Oq

CD

CD

00

LO

05

1 — 1

CD

CD

m

LO

t>

CM

^ — i

oq

00

05

CD

CO

LO

CO

CO

t>

C"

T— 1

i—l

i—l

i— l

i—i

i— i

LO

i—(

oq

1—1

1—1

£
• pO

r£

O

£

,__,

0

a

05

CD

O

CO

CD

t>

t>

05

05

LO

1—1

1—1

LO

CO

co

0)

r2

CO

O

CO

00

1 — 1

05

oq

00

t>

oq

oo

o

LO

‘3

CO

(M

Oq

(N

CO

CO^

00

1—1

1—1

LO

o

H

Co"

CO

i — l

H.
• rO

O

4H>

CO

P*|

CD

LO

LO

00

05

00

t>

t>

t-H

t>

CO

0

LO

CD

CD

CD

CD

t>

00

i—l

1— 1

LO

CD

3

pq

CO

CO

05

05

52

• pO

Q

• pO

a

CD

05

LO

LO

O

CD

CD

1—1

05

t>

LO

*C3

4h

t>

i — I

o

CD

LO

CO

i — I

00

05

05

CO

05

00

00

kS

CO

Th

T— 1

<N

CD

t>

LO.

Of

00^

i—l

t>

CO

r '-H

£
• pO

3

§

<N

of

<N

Oq"

of

1 — 1

i — 1

oq''

oq"

co"

oo"

oo"

LO"

LO"

1 — 1

CO

e

o

3

CD

CD

00

CD

LO

00

CD

o

o

t>

s®

t3

LO

(M

O

LO

LO

t>

00

CO

oq

oq

05

oq

o

00

**»

Cl)

g

CO

00

00

CD

LO

w

t>

(N

LO^

t>

05

00

CO

CO

oq

s

CD"

cd"

CD"

cd'

t>"

t>"

co"

oq"

LO"

LO"

oo"

C>

c>

c>

•V

i—i

1—1

i—i

1—1

1—1

1—1

1—1

i—i

1—1

i—l

i—l

i—l

1—1

1—1

i—i

'O

cd

CM

CM

CO

CM

CO

oq

CO

oq

CO

oq

CO

oq

CO

oq

CO

oq

0

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

>*

i—l

i—l

i—l

i—l

i—l

1—1

i—l

i—l

i—l

i—l

i—l

i—l

i—l

i—l

i—l

e

o

§

*0

co

u

cd

rO

o

0

52

O

• rH

6

+n

0

cd

4h

2

-o

cd

m

m

a

0

u

cd

3

’a

*o

• P"P

g

i—l

£

cd

£

o

k.

CO

• p<i

Q

'>

o

f-H

P3

c n
0
o

g

4h

0

§

cc

3

cd

a

g

cd

m

13

Id

-o

S3

cd

India

’>

o

fH

0

S

cd

-0

3

cd

m

m

o

3

p— i

cd

bjo

£

0

rH

cd

A

Ph

<3

<

PQ

pq

m

1931 8,231 1,132 .... 544

APPENDIX 10 — contd.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

201

T 1

05

CM

CO

rH

i — i

CM

rH

05

05

rH

CM

LO

LO

rH

o

CD

rH

rH

rH

CM

i — 1

i — 1

05

O

CM

LO

CD

CD

LO

LO

i — 1

05

t — 1

05

LO

rH

05

00

rH

T 1

rH

rH

O

o

rH

rH

1 — 1

O

t>

rH

CO

h-

rH

LO

LO

05

05

CO

o

CD

1 — 1

00

^ — i

LO

o

CM

t>

O

05

T 1

CM

rH

rH

rH

rH

CM

rH

rH

i — 1

i — I

LO

ID

CD

o

CO

o

CO

t>

CM

O

rH

05

CD

CM

o

CO

05

04

CO

CO

05

rH

o

CD

CM

oo

LO

LO

t>

LO

o

rH

rH

rH

CM

rH

CM

CM

CM

CO

CO

rH

rH

CM

CO

05

o

CM

LO

h-

LO

LO

CD

CD

CD

LO

CO

CD

l>

CD

CO

t>

rH

rH

ID

rH

00

CM

rH

CO

rH

rH

r— 1

rH

CD

o

rH

rH

rH

CM

CM

CM

O

CO

T 1

rH

LO

LO

oo

oo

05

o

05

LO

o

LO

CO

i — 1

t>

CM

CO

LO

00

CO

t>

CO

GO

05

O

05

o

LO

h-

o

CD

00

CO

LO

CM

00

05

O

CO

CO

t>

oo

05

CM

CD

t>

rH

rH

LO

CD

CO

CO

i — l

CM

CM

CO

05

05

LO

LO

i — I

1 — 1

1 — 1

1 — 1

00

lO

00

o

rH

CO

05

05

LO

rH

CD

O

rH

05

o

00

^ — 1

LO

o

CD

05

LO

o

co

CO

CD

00

CD

CO

CD

05

00

00

O

t>

CO

CD

CD

CO

CO

CO

CD

t>

05

LO

CM

00

oo

CD

LO

rH

CD

LO

t>

t>

t>

00

00

t>

00

CD

CD

00

oo

CO

CM

oo

00

t>

o

r- 1

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

^ — 1

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

CO

0)

fH

o5

Jh

_p

05

>

m

o

Sh

►>">

05

rD

05

a

P

o5

bJD

CC

05

rH

Ph

rD

05

Ph

T5

05

co

a

o

m

rH

P

PQ

C.P.

o

o

O

p— i
0)

Q

T5

o5

£

£

'S'

3

Ph

’8

£

o5

+->

m

T3

3

a

2

So

xs

3

CC

T3

c

PART III

ON HERO AND
HERO-WORSHIP

6

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

Address delivered on the 101st Birthday Celebration

of

MAHADEO GOVIND RANADE

held on

the 18th January 1943
in

the Gokhale Memorial Hall, Poona

First Published : 1943

Reprinted from the first edition of 1943

(a • 4 ■ 4 - 3

o , X i T tr

«VU| VfiCM&t. ^ ^ t

fa ft^L- „ ‘-W^t ’''?“

? o> L. Xs ^ ~ a “*‘ fc - /fW

* -A- „ «,* 4 ~icn»^ fu ^

/p<«*e. Mg kt/- Ov^v. r , ,

0 I L. Jl&u**

?JUk. J «** u,k^.. r

. . j . . Ij i ‘ n fa(/U

f 4r u^lc^t*.. J ^ ^

t fak^ ^ afa* -Wfc* & ‘ ^ '^' ht ^

^ Jtwc W ^

ovfr ^JT J

^0 &rv4L“ tc *X6t^ c >vAi,v TaJU^f^', I

CU^ ^ipTti c^o/^C. **f^L

k $W- . J jf^rvt- ** feA C ^

^ ~ ' .. ..^T* /I v . «/ji C-l //V*<( • >/ ^A**/''"

/ . ' !)

'•^eftlva H' eAv < *v' v ' * . J

Facsimile of Dr. Ambedkar’s handwriting from a letter addressed to

Prof. M. B. Chitnis

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

PREFACE

The Deccan Sabha of Poona invited me to deliver an address
on the 101st birthday of the late Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade
which it proposed to celebrate and which fell on the 18th January
1940. I was not very willing to accept the invitation. For I knew
that my views on social and political problems, a discussion of which
could not be avoided in a discourse on Ranade, would not be very
pleasing to the audience and even perhaps to the members of the
Deccan Sabha. In the end I accepted their invitation. At the time
when I delivered the address I had no intention of publishing it.
Addresses delivered on anniversaries of great men are generally
occasional pieces. They do not have much permanent value. I did
not think that my address was an exception to this. But I have
some troublesome friends who have been keen on seeing the whole
of it in print and have been insisting upon it. I am indifferent
to the idea. I am quite content with the publicity it has received
and I have no desire to seek more. At the same time if there are
people who think that it is worthy of being rescued from falling
into oblivion, I do not see any reason for disappointing them.

The address as printed differs from the address as delivered in
two respects. Section X of the address was omitted from the address
as delivered to prevent the performance going beyond reasonable
time. Even without it, it took one hour and a half to deliver the
address. This is one difference. The other difference lies in the
omission of a large portion of Section VIII which was devoted to
a comparison of Ranade with Phule. For the omission there are

208

PREFACE

two reasons. In the first place, the comparison was not sufficiently
full and detailed to do justice to the two men ; in the second
place, when the difficulties of finding enough paper compelled me
to sacrifice some portion of the address this appeared to be best
offering.

The publication of the address is taking place under peculiar
circumstances. Ordinarily reviews follow publication. In this case
the situation is reversed. What is worse is that the reviews have
condemned the address in scathing terms. This is a matter primarily
for the publishers to worry about. I am happy that the publisher
knows the risk and he takes it. Nothing more need be said about
it except that it supports the view taken by my friends that the
address contains matter which is of more than ephemeral value. As
for myself I am not in the least perturbed by the condemnation of
this address by the Press. What is the ground for its condemnation ?
And who has come forward to condemn it ?

I am condemned because I criticized Mr. Gandhi and
Mr. Jinnah for the mess they have made of Indian politics, and
that in doing so I am alleged to have shown towards them hatred
and disrespect. In reply to this charge what I have to say is that
I have been a critic and I must continue to be such. It may be
I am making mistakes but I have always felt that it is better to
make mistakes than to accept guidance and direction from others
or to sit silent and allow things to deteriorate. Those who have
accused me of having been actuated by feelings of hatred forget
two things. In the first place this alleged hatred is not born of
anything that can be called personal. If I am against them it is
because I want a settlement. I want a settlement of some sort
and I am not prepared to wait for an ideal settlement. Nor can
I tolerate anyone on whose will and consent settlement depends
to stand on dignity and play the Grand Moghul. In the second
place, no one can hope to make any effective mark upon his time
and bring the aid that is worth bringing to great principles and
struggling causes if he is not strong in his love and his hatred.
I hate injustice, tyranny, pompousness and humbug, and my
hatred embraces all those who are guilty of them. I want to tell
my critics that I regard my feelings of hatred as a real force.
They are only the reflex of the love I bear for the causes I believe

PREFACE

209

in and I am in no wise ashamed of it. For these reasons I tender no
apology for my criticism of Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah, the two men
who have brought India’s political progress to a standstill.

The condemnation is by the Congress Press. I know the Congress
Press well. I attach no value to its criticism. It has never refuted
my arguments. It knows only to criticise, rebuke and revile me for
everything I do and to misreport, misrepresent and pervert every-
thing I say. Nothing, that I do, pleases the Congress Press. This
animosity of the Congress Press towards me can to my mind not
unfairly, be explained as a reflex of the hatred of the Hindus for
the Untouchables. That their animosity has become personal is clear
from the fact that the Congress Press feels offended for my having
criticised Mr. Jinnah who has been the butt and the target of the
Congress for the last several years.

However strong and however filthy be the abuses which the
Congress Press chooses to shower on me I must do my duty. I am
no worshipper of idols. I believe in breaking them. I insist that if
I hate Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah — I dislike them, I do not hate
them — it is because I love India more. That is the true faith of a
nationalist. I have hopes that my countrymen, will some day learn
that the country is greater than the men, that the worship of Mr.
Gandhi or Mr. Jinnah and service to India are two very different
things and may even be contradictory of each other.

22 Prithviraj Road
New Delhi
15th March 1943

B. R. AMBEDKAR

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

i

I must tell you that I am not very happy over this invitation. My fear is
that I may not be able to do justice to the occasion. When a year ago the
Centenary of Ranade’s Birthday was celebrated in Bombay, the Rt. Hon’ble
Srinivas Shastri was chosen to speak. For very many reasons he was
well-qualified for performing the duty. He can claim to be a contemporary
of Ranade for a part of his life. He had seen him at close range and was
an eye witness of the work to which Ranade devoted his life. He had
opportunity to judge him and compare him with his co-workers. He could
therefore expound his views about Ranade with a sense of confidence
and with intimacy born out of personal touch. He could cite an anecdote
and illuminate the figure of Ranade before his audience. None of these
qualifications are available to me. My connection with Ranade is of the
thinnest. I had not even seen him. There are only two incidents about
Ranade which I can recall. First relates to his death. I was a student in
the first standard in the Satara High School. On the 16th January 1901
the High School was closed and we boys had a holiday. We asked why it
was closed and we were told that because Ranade was dead. I was then
about 9 years old. I knew nothing about Ranade, who he was, what he
had done ; like other boys I was happy over the holiday and did not care
to know who died. The second incident which reminds me of Ranade is
dated much later than the first. Once I was examining some bundles of
old papers belonging to my father when I found in them a paper which
purported to be a petition sent by the Commissioned and non-Commissioned
officers of the Mahar Community to the Government of India against
the orders issued in 1892 banning the recruitment of the Mahars in the
Army. On inquiry I was told that this was a copy of a petition which was
drafted by Ranade to help the aggrieved Mahars to obtain redress. Beyond
these two incidents I have nothing to recall of Ranade. My knowledge
about him is wholly impersonal. It is derived from what I have read about

212

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

his work and what others have said about him. You must not expect me
to say anything of a personal character which will either interest, you or
instruct you. I propose to say what I think of him as a public-man in his
days and his place in Indian politics today.

II

As you are well aware, there are friends of Ranade who do not hesitate
to describe him as a great man and there are others who with equal
insistance deny him that place. Where does the truth lie? But this question
must, I think, wait upon another, namely, is history the biography of great
men ? The question is both relevant as well as important. For, if great
men were not the makers of history, there is no reason why we should
take more notice of them than we do of cinema stars. Views differ. There
are those who assert that however great a man may be, he is a creature of
Time — Time called him forth, Time did everything, he did nothing. Those
who hold this view, in my judgment, wrongly interpret history. There have
been three different views on the causes of historical changes. We have
had the Augustinian theory of history, according to which history is only
an unfolding of a divine plan in which mankind is to continue through war
and suffering until that divine plan is completed at the day of judgment.
There is the view of Buckle who held that history was made by Geography
and Physics. Karl Marx propounded a third view. According to him history
was the result of economic forces. None of these three would admit that
history is the biography of great men. Indeed they deny man any place in
the making of history. No one except theologians accepts the Augustinian
theory of history. As to Buckle and Marx, while there is truth in what they
say, their views do not represent the whole truth. They are quite wrong
in holding that impersonal forces are everything and that man is no factor
in the making of history. That impersonal forces are a determining factor
cannot be denied. But that the effect of impersonal forces depends on man
must also be admitted. Flint may not exist everywhere. But where it does
exist, it needs man to strike flint against flint to make fire. Seeds may not
be found everywhere. But where they do exist, it needs man to ground it
to powder and make it a delectable and nutritious paste and thereby lay
the foundation of agriculture. There are many areas devoid of metals. But
where they do exist, it needs a man to make instruments and machines
which are the basis of civilization and culture.

Take the case of social forces. Various tragic situations arise. One such
situation is of the type described by Thayer in his biography of Theodore
Roosevelt when he says :

“There comes a time in every sect, party or institution when it stops

growing, its arteries harden, its young men see no visions, its old men

dream no dreams ; it lives on the past and desperately tries to perpetuate

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

213

the past. In politics when this process of petrifaction is reached we call it
Bourbonism and the sure sign of the Bourbon is that, being unconscious that
he is the victim of sclerosis, he sees no reason for seeking a cure. Unable to
adjust himself to changed and new conditions he falls back into the past as an
old man drops into his worm-out arm-chair.”

The other kind of situation is not one of decay but of destruction. The
possibilities of it are always present whenever there is a crisis. The old
ways, old habits and old thoughts fail to lift society and lead it on. Unless
new ones are found there is no possibility of survival. No society has a
smooth sailing. There are periods of decay and possibilities of destruction
through which every society has to pass. Some survive, some are destroyed,
and some undergo stagnation and decay. Why does this happen? What is
the reason that some survive ? Carlyle has furnished an answer. He puts
in his characteristic way:

“No time need have gone to ruin, could it have found a great enough, a man
wise and good enough; Wisdom to discern truly what the Time wanted, valour
to lead it on to the right road thither, these are the salvation of any Time.”

This seems to me to be quite a conclusive answer to those who deny man
any place in the making of history. The crisis can be met by the discovery
of a new way. Where there is no new way found, society goes under. Time
may suggest possible new ways. But to step on the right one is not the work
of Time. It is the work of man. Man therefore is a factor in the making of
history and that environmental forces whether impersonal or social if they
are the first are not the last things.

Ill

Who can be called a great man ? If asked of military heroes such as
Alexander, Attila, Caesar and Tamerlane, the question is not difficult to
answer. The military men make epochs and effect vast transitions. They
appal and dazzle their contemporaries by their resounding victories. They
become great without waiting to be called great. As the lion is among the
deer, so they are among men. But it is equally true that their permanent
effect on the history of mankind is very small. Their conquests shrink, and
even so great a General as Napoleon after all his conquests left France
smaller than he found it. When viewed from a distance they are seen to
be only periodical, if necessary, incidents in the world’s movement, leaving
no permanent mark on the character of the society in which they live The
details of their career and their moral may be interesting, but they do not
affect society and form no leaven to transform or temper the whole.

The answer becomes difficult when the question is asked about a person
who is not a military general. For, it then becomes a question of tests, and
different people have different tests.

214

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Carlyle the apostle of Hero Worship had a test of his own. He laid it
down in the following terms :

“But of great man especially, of him I will venture to assert that it is
incredible he should have been other than true. It seems to me the primary
foundation of him, this... No man adequate to do anything, but is first of all
in right earnest about it; what I call a sincere man. I should say sincerity,
a deep, great genuine sincerity, is the first characteristic of all men in any
way heroic.”

Carlyle was of course particular in defining his test of sincerity in
precise terms, and in doing so he warned his readers by defining what
his idea of sincerity was —

“Not the sincerity that calls itself sincere : Ah no,” he said, “that is a
very poor matter indeed ; — a shallow, braggart, conscious sincerity ; oftenest
self-conceit mainly. The great man’s sincerity is of the kind he cannot speak
of, is not conscious of : Nay, I suppose, he is conscious rather of insincerity ;
for what man can walk accurately by the law of truth for one day ? No, the
great man does not boast himself sincere, far from that; perhaps does not
ask himself if he is so : I would say rather, his sincerity does not depend
on himself ; he cannot help being sincere!”

Lord Rosebery proposed another test when dealing with Napoleon — who
was as great an Administrator as a General. In answering the question,
Was Napoleon Great ? Rosebery used the following language :

“If by ‘great’ be intended the combination of moral qualities with those of
intellect, great be certainly was not. But that he was great in the sense of
being extraordinary and supreme we can have no doubt. If greatness stands
for natural power, for predominance, for something human beyond humanity,
then Napoleon was assuredly great. Besides that indefinable spark which
we call genius, he represents a combination of intellect and energy which
has never perhaps been equalled, never certainly surpassed.”

There is a third test, suggested by the philosophers or, to be more
accurate, by those who believe in divine guidance of human affairs. They
have a different conception of what is a great man. To summarise the
summary of their view, as given by Rosebery, a great man is launched
into the world, as a great natural or supernatural force, as a scourge
and a scavenger boon to cleanse society and lead it on to the right path
who is engaged in a vast operation, partly positive, mainly negative, but
all relating to social regeneration.

Which of these is the true test ? In my judgment all are partial and none
is complete. Sincerity must be the test of a great man. Clemenceau once said
that most statesmen are rogues. Statesmen are not necessarily great men,

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

215

and obviously those on whose experience he founded his opinion must have
been those wanting in sincerity. Nonetheless no one can accept that sincerity
is the primary or the sole test. For sincerity is not enough. A great man
must have sincerity. For it is the sum of all moral qualities without which
no man can be called great. But there must be something more than mere
sincerity in a man to make him great. A man may be sincere and yet he
may be a fool, and a fool is the very antithesis of a great man. A man is
great because he finds a way to save society in its hours of crisis. But what
can help him to find the way ? He can do so only with the help of intellect.
Intellect is the light. Nothing else can be of any avail. It is quite obvious
that without the combination of sincerity and intellect no man can be great.
Is this enough to constitute a great man? At this stage we, must, I think,
make a distinction between an eminent individual and a great man. For I
am certain that a great man is something very different from an eminent
individual. Sincerity and intellect are enough to mark out an individual as
being eminent as compared to his fellows. But they arc not enough to rake
him to the dignity of a great man. A great man must have something more
than what a merely eminent individual has. What must be that thing ? Here
comes the importance of the philosopher’s definition of a great man. A great
man must be motivated by the dynamics of a social purpose and must act
as the scourge and the scavenger of society. These axe the elements which
distinguish an ominent individual from a great man and constitute his title-
deeds to respect and reverence.

IV

Was Ranade a great man ? He was of course great in his person. Vast in
physique — he could have been called “Your Immense” as the Irish servant
who could not pronounce Your Eminence used respectfully to call Cardinal
Wiseman — his master. He was a man of sanguine temperament, of genial
disposition and versatile in his capacity. He had sincerity which is the sum
of all moral qualities and his sincerity was of the sort which was prescribed
by Carlyle. It was not a conscious “braggart sincerity”. It was the natural
sincerity, a constitutional trait and not an assumed air. He was not only
big in his physique and in his sincerity, he was also big in intellect. Nobody
can question that Ranade had intellect of a high calibre. He was not merely
a lawyer and a judge of the High Court, he was a first class economist, a
first class historian, a first class educationist and a first class divine. He
was not a politician. Perhaps it is good that he was not. For if he had
been, he might not have been a great man. As Abraham Lincoln said,
“Politicians are a set of men who have interests aside from the interests of
the people and who, to say the most of them are taken as a mass, at least
one long step removed from honest men.” Ranade though not a politician
was a profound student of politics. Indeed it would be difficult to find in the
history of India any man who could come up to Ranade in the width of his

216

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

learning, the breadth of his wisdom and the length of his vision. There
was no subject which he did not touch and in which he did not acquire
profundity. His reading was on the scale of the colossal and every inch
he was a scholar. He was great not merely by the standard of his Time,
but he was great — measured by any standard. As I have said no claim
for being a great man can rest on the foundation of sincerity and intellect
either singly or in combination. Ranade could not be called great if he had
these two qualities and no more. His title to being a great man must rest
upon the social purposes he served and on the way he served them. On
that there can be no doubt. Ranade is known more as a social reformer
than as a historian, economist or educationist. His whole life is nothing
but a relentless campaign for social reform. It is on his role as a social
reformer that this title to being a great man rests. Ranade had both the
vision and the courage which the reformer needs, and in the circumstances
in which he was born his vision was no small a virtue than his courage.
That he developed a vision of the Prophet — I am using the word in the
Jewish sense — cannot but be regarded as a matter of surprise if the time
in which he was born is taken into account. Ranade was born in 1842 some
24 years after the battle of Kirkee which brought the Maratha Empire to an
end. The downfall of the Maratha Empire evoked different feelings among
different people. There were men like Natu who served as accessories before
the fact. There were some who played the part of accessories after the fact,
inasmuch as they were happy that the cursed rule of the Brahmin Peshwa
was brought to an end. But there can be no doubt that a large majority of
the people of Maharashtra were stunned by the event. When the whole of
India was enveloped by the advancing foreign horde and its people being
subjugated piece by piece, here in this little corner of Maharashtra lived a
sturdy race who knew what liberty was, who had fought for it inch by inch
and established it over miles and miles. By the British conquest they had
lost what was to them a most precious possession. One can quite imagine
how the best intellect of Maharashtra had its mind utterly confounded and
its horizon fully and completely darkened. What could be the natural reaction
to so great a catastrophe? Can it be other than resignation, defeatism and
surrender to the inevitable? How did Ranade react? Very differently. He held
out the hope that the fallen shall rise. Indeed he developed a new faith on
which this hope was founded. Let me quote his own words. He said :

“I profess implicit faith in two articles of my creed. This country of ours is

the true land of promise. This race of ours is the chosen race.”

He did not rest quiet by merely enunciating this new Mosaic Gospel of
hope and confidence. He applied his mind to the question of the realization
of this hope. The first requisite was of course a dispassionate analysis of the
causes of this downfall. Ranade realized that the downfall was due to certain
weaknesses in the Hindu social system and unless these weaknesses were

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

217

removed the hope could not be realized. The new gospel was therefore
followed by a call to duty. That duty was no other than the duty to reform
Hindu society. Social reform became therefore the one dominant purpose of
his life. He developed a passion for social reform and there was nothing he
did not do to promote it. His methods included meetings, missions, lectures,
sermons, articles, interviews, letters — all carried, on with an unrelenting
zeal. He established many societies. He founded many journals. But he was
not content with this. He wanted something more permanent, something
more systematic for promoting the cause of social reform. So he founded the
Social Conference, an All-India Organization which ran as an adjunct to the
Indian National Congress. Year after year the Conference met to discuss
the social ills and to find the ways of remedying them, and year after year
Ranade attended its annual sessions as though it was a pilgrimage and
fostered the cause of social reform.

In fostering the cause of social reform Ranade showed great courage.
Many people of this generation will perhaps laugh at such a claim. Courting
prison has become an act of martyrdom in India. It is regarded both as a
patriotic act and also as an act of courage. Most people who would otherwise
be beneath notice and in whose case it could rightly be said that they were
scoundrels who had taken to politics as their last refuge, have by going to
prison become martyrs and have acquired a name and fame which, to say
the least, is quite astounding. There would be some substance in this view,
if prison life involved the rigours to which men like Tilak and those of his
generation had been subjected. Prison life today has lost all its terrors. It has
become a mere matter of detention. Political prisoners are no longer treated
as criminals. They are placed in a separate class. There are no hardships to
suffer, there is no reputation to lose and there is no privation to undergo.
It calls for no courage. But even when prison life had, as in the time of
Mr. Tilak, its rigours the political prisoners could make no claim to greater
courage than a social reformer. Most people do not realize that society can
practise tyranny and oppression against an individual in a far greater degree
than a Government can. The means and scope that are open to society for
oppression are more extensive than those that are open to Government, also
they are far more effective. What punishment in the penal code is comparable
in its magnitude and its severity to excommunication ? Who has greater
courage — the social reformer who challenges society and invites upon himself
excommunication or the political prisoner who challenges Government and
incurs sentence of a few months or a few years imprisonment ? There is
also another difference which is often lost sight of inestimating the courage
shown by the social reformer and the political patriot. When the social
reformer challenges society there is nobody to hail him a martyr. There
is nobody even to befriend him. He is loathed and shunned. But when

218

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the political patriot challenges Government he has whole society to support
him. He is praised, admired and elevated as the saviour. Who shows more
courage — The social reformer who fights alone or the political patriot who
fights under the cover of vast mass of supporters ? It would be idle to deny
that Ranade showed courage in taking up the cause of social reform. Indeed
he showed a high degree of courage. For let it be remembered that he lived
in times when social and religious customs however gross and unmoral
were regarded as sacrosanct and when any doubt questioning their divine
and moral basis was regarded not merely as heterodoxy but as intolerable
blasphemy and sacrilege.

V

His path as a reformer was not smooth. It was blocked from many
sides. The sentiments of the people whom he wanted to reform were deeply
rooted in the ancient past. They held the belief that their ancestors were
the wisest and the noblest of men, and the social system which they had
devised was of the most ideal character. What appeared to Ranade to be
the shames and wrongs of the Hindu society were to them the most sacred
injunctions of their religion. This was the attitude of the common man. The
intelligentsia was divided into two schools — a school which was orthodox in
its belief but unpolitical in its outlook, and a school which was modern in its
beliefs but primarily political in its aims and objects. The former was led by
Mr. Chiplunkar and the latter by Mr. Tilak. Both combined against Ranade
and created as many difficulties for him as they could. They not only did
the greatest harm to the cause of social reform, but as experience shows
they have done the greatest harm to the cause of political reform in India.
The unpolitical or the orthodox school believed in the Hegelian view — it is a
puzzle to me — namely to realize the ideal and idealize the real. In this it was
egregiously wrong. The Hindu religious and social system is such that you
cannot go forward to give its ideal form a reality because the ideal is bad ;
nor can you attempt to elevate the real to the status of the ideal because the
real, i.e., the existing state of affairs, is worse than worse could be. This is
no exaggeration. Take the Hindu religious system or take the Hindu social
system, and examine it from the point of social utility and social justice. It is
said that religion is good when it is fresh from the mint. But Hindu religion
has been a bad coin to start with. The Hindu ideal of society as prescribed
by Hindu religion has acted as a most demoralizing and degrading influence
on Hindu society. It is Nietzschean in its form and essence. Long before
Nietzsche was born Manu had proclaimed the gospel which Nietzsche sought
to preach. It is a religion which is not intended to establish liberty, equality
and fraternity. It is a gospel which proclaims the worship of the superman —
the Brahmin by the rest of the Hindu society. It propounds that the superman
and his class alone are born to live and to rule. Others are born to serve

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

219

them, and to nothing more. They have no life of their own to live, and
no right to develop their own personality. This has been the gospel of the
Hindu Religion. Hindu philosophy, whether it is Vedanta, Sankhya, Nyaya,
Vaishashika, has moved in its own circle without in anyway affecting the
Hindu religion. It has never had the courage to challenge this gospel. That
Hindu philosophy that everything is Brahma remained only a matter of
intellect. It never became a social philosophy. The Hindu philosophers had
both their philosophy and their Manu held apart in two hands, the right not
knowing what the left had. The Hindu is never troubled by their inconsistency.
As to their social system, can things be worst ? The Caste system is in itself
a degenerate form of the Chaturvarnya which is the ideal of the Hindu. How
can anybody who is not a congenital idiot accept Chaturvarnya as the ideal
form of society ? Individually and socially it is a folly and a crime. One class
and one class alone to be entitled to education and learning! One class and
one class alone to be entitled to arms! One class and one class alone to trade!
One class and one class alone to serve! For the individual the consequences are
obvious. Where can you find a learned man who has no means of livelihood
who will not degrade his education? Where can you find a soldier with no
education and culture who will use his arms to conserve and not to destroy ?
Where can you find a merchant with nothing but the acquisitive instinct to
follow who will not descend to the level of the brute ? Where can you find the
servant who is not to acquire education, who is not to own arms and who is
not to possess other means of livelihood to be a man as his maker intended
him to be ? If baneful to the individual it makes society vulnerable. It is not
enough for a social structure to be good for a fair weather. It must be able
to weather the storm. Can the Hindu caste system stand the gale and the
wind of an aggression ? It is obvious that it cannot. Either for defence or
for offence a society must be able to mobilize its forces. With functions and
duties exclusively distributed and immutably assigned, what way is there
for mobilization ? Ninety per cent of the Hindus — Brahmins, Vaishyas and
Shudras — could not bear arms under the Hindu social system. How can a
country be defended if its army cannot be increased in the hour of its peril.
It is not Buddha who, as is often alleged, weakened Hindu society by his
gospel of non-violence. It is the Brahminic theory of Chaturvarnya that has
been responsible not only for the defeat but for the decay of Hindu society.
Some of you will take offence at what I have said about the demoralizing
effect of the Hindu socio-religious ideal on Hindu society. But what is the
truth ? Can the charge be denied ? Is there any society in the world which
has unapproachables, unshadowables and unseeables ? Is there any society
which has got a population of Criminal Tribes ? Is there a society in which
there exists today primitive people, who live in jungles, who do not know
even to clothe themselves ? How many do they count in numbers ? Is it a
matter of hundreds, is it a matter of thousands ? I wish they numbered

220

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a paltry few. The tragedy is that they have to be counted in millions, millions
of Untouchables, millions of Criminal Tribes, millions of Primitive Tribes!!
One wonders whether the Hindu civilization, is civilization or infamy? This
is about the ideal. Turn now to the state of things as it existed when Ranade
came on the scene. It is impossible to realize now the state of degradation
they had reached when the British came on the scene and with which the
reformers like Ranade were faced. Let me begin with the condition of the
intellectual class. The rearing and guiding of a civilization must depend
upon its intellectual class — upon the lead given by the Brahmins. Under
the old Hindu Law the Brahmin enjoyed the benefit of the clergy and not
be hanged even if he was guilty of murder, and the East India Company
allowed him the privilege till 1817. That is no doubt because he was the
salt of the Earth. Was there any salt left in him ? His profession had lost
all its nobility. He had become a pest. The Brahmin systematically preyed
on society and profiteered in religion. The Puranas and Shastras which
he manufactured in tons are treasure trove of sharp practices which the
Brahmins employed to befool, beguile and swindle the common mass of
poor, illiterate and superstitious Hindus. It is impossible in this address to
give references to them. I can only refer to the coercive measures which the
Brahmins had sanctified as proper to be employed against the Hindus to the
encashment of their rights and privileges. Let those who want to know read
the preamble to Regulation XXI of 1795. According to it whenever a Brahmin
wanted to get anything which could not be willingly got from his victim, he
resorted to various coercive practices — lacerating his own body with knives
and razors or threatening to swallows some poison were the usual tricks he
practised to carry out his selfish purposes. There were other ways employed
by the Brahmin to coerce the Hindus which were as extraordinary as they
were shameless. A common practice was the erection in front of the house
of his victim of the koorh — a circular enclosure in which a pile of wood was
placed — within the enclosure an old woman was placed ready to be burnt
in the koorh if his object was not granted. The second devise of such a
kind was the placing of his women and children in the sight of his victim
and threaten to behead them. The third was the Dhurna — starving on the
doorstep of the victim. This is nothing. Brahmins had started making claims
for a right to deflower the women of non-Brahmins. The practice prevailed
in the family of the Zamorin of Calicut and among the Vallabhachari sect of
Vaishnavas. What depths of degradation the Brahmins had fallen to ! If, as
the Bible says, the salt has lost its flavour wherewith shall it be salted ? No
wonder the Hindu Society had its moral bonds loosened to a dangerous point.
The East India Company had in 1819 to pass a Regulation (VII of 1819) to
put a stop to this moral degeneracy. The preamble to the Regulation says
that women were employed wholesale to entice and take away the wives
or female children for purposes of prostitution, and it was common practice

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

221

among husbands and fathers to desert their families and children. Public
conscience there was none, and in the absence of conscience it was futile to
expect moral indignation against the social wrongs. Indeed the Brahmins
were engaged in defending every wrong for the simple reason that they lived
on them. They defended Untouchability which condemned millions to the lot
of the helot. They defended caste, they defended female child marriage and
they defended enforced widowhood — the two great props of the Caste system.
They defended the burning of widows, and they defended the social system
of graded inequality with its rule of hypergamy which led the Rajputs to
kill in their thousands the daughters that were born to them. What shames!
What wrongs! Can such a society show its face before civilized nations ?
Can such a society hope to survive ? Such were the questions which Ranade
asked. He concluded that on only one condition it could be saved — namely,
rigorous social reform.

VI

His greatest opponents however came from the political school of the
intelligentsia. These politicals developed a new thesis. According to that thesis
political reform was to have precedence over social reform. The thesis was
argued from platform to platform and was defended by eminent people like
Mr. Justice Telang, a Judge of the Bombay High Court, with the consummate
skill of an acute lawyer. The thesis caught the imagination of the people.
If there was one single cause to which the blocking of the Social Reform
movement could be attributed, it was this cry of political reform. The thesis
is unsupportable, and I have no doubt that the opponents of Ranade were
wrong and in pursuing it did not serve the best interests of the country.
The grounds on which Mr. Justice Telang defended the Politicians’ thesis
were of course logical. But he totally forgot that logic is not reason, and
analogy is not argument. Neither did he have a correct understanding of the
inter-relation between the “social” and the “political” which Ranade had. Let
us examine the reasons for the thesis. Those that were advanced were not
very impressive. But I am prepared to meet the most impressive arguments
that could be advanced. Even then the thesis will not stand. The following
strike me as being the most impressive. In the first place, it could be said
that we want political power first because we want to protect the rights of
the people. This answer proceeds from a very frugal theory of Government
as was propounded by the American statesman Jefferson according to whom
politics was only an affair of policing by the State so that that the rights
of people were maintained without disturbance. Assume that the theory is
a sound one. The question is, what is there for the State to police if there
are no rights ? Rights must exist before policing becomes a serious matter
of substance. The thesis that political reform should precede social reform
becomes on the face of it an absurd proposition, unless the idea is that the
Government is to protect those who have vested rights and to penalize those

222

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

who have none. The second ground that could be urged in support of the
thesis is that they wanted political power because they wanted to confer on
each individual certain fundamental rights by law and that such conferring of
the political rights could not take place unless there was political power first
obtained. This of course sounds very plausible. But is there any substance
in it ? The idea of fundamental rights has become a familiar one since their
enactment in the American Constitution and in the Constitution, framed by
Revolutionary France. The idea of making a gift of fundamental rights to
every individual is no doubt very laudable. The question is how to make
them effective ? The prevalent view is that once rights are enacted in a
law then they are safeguarded. This again is an unwarranted assumption.
As experience proves, rights are protected not by law but by the social and
moral conscience of society. If social conscience is such that it is prepared
to recognize the rights which law chooses to enact, rights will be safe and
secure. But if the fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no
Law, no Parliament, no Judiciary can guarantee them in the real sense
of the word. What is the use of the fundamental rights to the Negroes in
America, to the Jews in Germany and to the Untouchables in India? As
Burke said, there is no method found for punishing the multitude. Law can
punish a single solitary recalcitrant criminal. It can never operate against
a whole body of people who are determined to defy it. Social conscience — to
use the language of Coleridge — that calm incorruptible legislator of the soul
without whom all other powers would “meet in mere oppugnancy — is the
only safeguard of all rights fundamental or non-fundamental.”

The third argument of the politicals could be based on the right to Self-
Government. That self-Government is better than good Government is a
well-known cry. One cannot give it more value than one can give to a slogan,
and all would like to be assured that self-Government would also be a good
Government. There is no doubt that the politicals wanted good Government
and their aim was to establish a democratic form of Government. But they
never stopped to consider whether a democratic form of Government was
possible. Their contention was founded on a series of fallacies. A democratic
form of Government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal
framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there
was no social democracy. The politicals never realized that democracy was
not a form of Government : it was essentially a form of society. It may not
be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community
of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it
does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an
attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social
organization free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is incompatible and
inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, resulting in the distinction

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

223

between the privileged and the unprivileged. Unfortunately, the opponents
of Ranade were never able to realize the truth of this fact.

One may judge it by any test and it will be found that the stand that
Ranade took in this controversy and his plan of work were correct and
fundamental to if they were not the pre-requisites of political reform.
Ranade argued that there were no rights in the Hindu society which the
moral sense of man could recognize. There were privileges and disabilities,
privileges for a few and disabilities for a vast majority. Ranade struggled to
create rights. Ranade wanted to vitalize the conscience of the Hindu society
which had become moribund as well morbid. Ranade aimed to create a real
social democracy, without which there could be no sure and stable politics.
The conflict was between two opposing points of view and it centred round
the question which is more important for the survival of a nation, political
freedom or. strong moral fiber. Ranade took the view that moral stamina
was more important than political freedom. This was also the view of Lecky
the great historian who after a careful and comparative study of history
came to the conclusion that :

“The foundation of a Nation’s strength and prosperity is laid in pure domestic
life, in commercial integrity, in a high standard of moral worth, and of public
spirit, in simple habits, in courage, uprightness, and a certain soundness and
moderation of judgment which springs quite as much from character as from
intellect. If you would form a wise judgment of the future of a nation, observe
carefully whether these qualities are increasing or decaying. Observe carefully
what qualities count for most in public life. Is character becoming of greater
or less importance ? Are the men who obtain the highest posts in the nation
men of whom, in private life, irrespective of party competent judges speak
with genuine respect ? Are they of sincere convictions, consistent lives and
indisputable integrity ? It is by observing this current that you can best cast
the horoscope of a nation.”

Ranade was not only wise but he was also logical. He told his opponents
against playing the part of Political Radicals and Social Tories. In clear and
unmistakable terms he warned them saying :

“You cannot be liberal by halves. You cannot be liberal in politics and
conservative in religion. The heart and the head must go together. You cannot
cultivate your intellect, enrich your mind, enlarge the sphere of your political
rights and privileges, and at the same time keep your hearts closed and cramped.

It is an idle dream to expect men to remain enchained and enshackled in their
own superstition and social evils, while they are struggling hard to win rights
and privileges from their rulers. Before long these vain dreamers will find
their dreams lost.”

Experience has shown that these words of Ranade have been true, even
prophetic. Let those who deny this consider : Where are we today in politics

224

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

and why are we where we are ? It is now 50 years since the National
Congress was born. Its stewardship has passed hands, I won’t say from
the sane to the insane, or from realists to idealists, but from moderates
to radicals. Where does the country stand today at the end of 50 years
of political marching ? What is the cause of this deadlock ? The answer is
simple. The cause of deadlock is the absence of Communal settlement. Ask
why is communal settlement necessary for political settlement and you
realize the fundamental importance of the stand that Ranade took. For the
answer to this question is to be found in the wrong social system, which is
too undemocratic, too over-weighed in favour of the classes and against the
masses, too class conscious and too communally minded. Political democracy
would become a complete travesty if it were built upon its foundations. That
is why nobody except the high caste Hindus will agree to make it the case
of a political Democracy without serious adjustments. Well may some people
argue to their satisfaction that the deadlock is the creation of the British
Government. People like to entertain thoughts which sooth them and which
throw responsibility on others. This is the psychology of escapism. But it
cannot alter the fact that it is the defects of social system which has given
rise to the communal problem and which has stood in the way of India
getting political power.

Ranade’s aim was to cleanse the old order if not to build a new one.
He insisted on improving the moral tone of Hindu society. If he had been
heard and followed, the system would have at least lost its rigours and its
rigidity. If it could not have avoided Communal settlement it would have
made it easy. For his attempts, limited as they were, would have opened
the way to mutual trust. But the politicals had developed a passion for
political power which had so completely blinded them that they refused to
see virtue in anything else. Ranade has had his revenge. Is not the grant
of political safeguard a penalty for denying the necessity of social reform ?

How much did Ranade achieve in the field in which he played so dominant
a part ? In a certain sense the question is not very important. Achievement
is never the true measure of greatness. “Alas”, as Carlyle said, “we know
very well that ideals can never be completely embodied in practice. Ideals
must ever lie a very great way off; and we will right thankfully content
ourselves with any not intolerable approximation thereto!” Let no man,
as Schillar says, too querulously “measure by a scale of perfection the
meagre product of reality” in this poor world of ours. We will esteem him
no wise man ; we will esteem him a sickly discontented foolish man. And
yet Ranade’s record of achievement was not altogether bare. The problems
facing the then social reformers contained in the statement on social reform
prepared by Rai Bahadur P. Anandcharly were five : (1) early marriage ;
(2) remarriages of widows ; (3) liberty for our countrymen to travel — or

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

225

sojourn in foreign lands ; (4) women’s rights of property and (5) education of
women. Of this programme he achieved a great part. If he did not achieve
all, there were the odds against him, which should never be forgotten. A
clever, determined and an insincere intelligentsia came forward to defend
orthodoxy and give battle to Ranade. The scenes were exciting, as exciting
as those of a dread grim of battle. And battle it was. One cannot recall the
spirit of the time when this controversy over social reform was raging in
this country. It is not possible for decency to enter into the abuses that were
hurled, the calumnies that were uttered, the strategies that were employed
by the orthodox section against the Social Reformers. It is impossible to
read the writing of those who supported orthodoxy in their opposition to the
Age of Consent Bill without realizing the depth of the degradation to which
the so-called leaders of the peoples had fallen. The Bill aimed to punish a
husband who would have sexual intercourse with his wife if she had not
attained the age of 12. Could any sane man, could any man with a sense of
shame oppose so simple a measure ? But it was opposed, and Ranade had to
bear the brunt of the mad orthodoxy. Assuming that Ranade’s achievements
were small; who could take pride or exultation in his failure to achieve
more ? There was no cause for exultation. The decline of social reform was
quite natural. The odium of social reform was too great. The appeal of
political power too alluring. The result was that social reform found fewer
and fewer adherents. In course of time the platform of the Social Reform
Conference was deserted and men flocked to the Indian National Congress.
The politicians triumphed over the social reformers. I am sure that nobody
will now allow that their triumph was a matter for pride. It is certainly
a matter of sorrow. Ranade may not have been altogether on the winning
side, but he was not on the wrong side and certainly never on the side of
the wrong as some of his opponents were.

VIII

How does Ranade compare with others ? Comparisons are always odious
and unpleasant. At the same time it is true that there is nothing more
illuminating than comparisons. Of course in making them one must bear in
mind that to be interesting and instructive comparisons must be between
those that are alike. Fortunately there is field for comparison. Ranade was
a social reformer and as a social reformer he could be usefully compared
with other social reformers. Particularly illuminating will be the comparison
between Ranade and Jotiba Phule. Phule was born in 1827 and died in
1890. Ranade was born in 1842 and died in 1901. Thus Phule and Ranade
were contemporaries and both were foremost social reformers. Some may
perhaps demur to the wisdom of comparing Ranade with other politicians.
This can only be on the ground that Ranade was not a politician. To say that
Ranade was not a politician is to impose a very narrow and very restricted
meaning upon the term politician. A politician does not merely trade in
politics but he also represents particular faith covering both — the method

226

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

as well as the metaphysics of politics. Ranade was the founder of a school
of politics which was distinctive for its method as well as for metaphysics.
Used in this sense Ranade was a politician and could be usefully compared
with other politicians. Comparisons of Ranade with social reformers and
with politicians cannot but be illuminating and there is enough material
for such comparisons. The question really is one of time and taste. Time
will not permit any extensive comparison of Ranade being made both with
social reformers as well as with politicians. I must really choose between
comparing Ranade with social reformers or with politicians. This is a matter
of taste. Left to myself I would have preferred to use my available time to
compare Ranade with Phule. For I regard social Reform more fundamental
than political reform. Unfortunately my taste is different from the taste of
the audience and I feel that in detaining the audience I must be guided
more by its likes and dislikes than my own. The ardour for social reform
has cooled down. The craze for politics has held the Indian public in its grip.
Politics has become an appetiser — a mastic the more one tastes it the more
one craves it. The task I am undertaking is a very unpleasant one and if I
venture upon it, it is only because it is my duty to expound fully and the
desire of the public to know truly the value of Ranade’s political philosophy
and his place among politicians of today.

Who are the present day politicians with whom Ranade is to be compared ?
Ranade was a great politician of his day. He must therefore be compared
with the greatest of today. We have on the horizon of India two great men,
so big that they could be identified without being named — Gandhi and
Jinnah, What sort of a history they will make may be a matter for posterity
to tell. For us it is enough that they do indisputably make headlines for the
Press. They hold leading strings. One leads the Hindus, the other leads the
Muslims. They are the idols and heroes of the hour. I propose to compare
them with Ranade. How do they compare with Ranade ? It is necessary to
make some observations upon their temperaments and methods with which
they have now familiarized us. I can give only my impressions of them, for
what they are worth. The first thing that strikes me is that it would be
difficult to find two persons who would rival them for their colossal egotism,
to whom personal ascendency is everything and the cause of the country
a mere counter on the table. They have made Indian politics a matter of
personal feud. Consequences have no terror for them ; indeed they do not
occur to them until they happen. When they do happen they either forget
the cause, or if they remember it, they overlook it with a complacency
which saves them from any remorse. They choose to stand on a pedestal of
splendid isolation. They will themselves off from their equals. They prefer to
open themselves to their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient
of criticism, but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have
developed a wonderful stagecraft and arrange things in such a way that they

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

227

are always in the limelight wherever they go. Each of course claims to be
supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small wonder. In
addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for himself. Pius IX during
whose sacred regime as Pope the issue of infallibility was raging said —
“Before I was Pope I believed in Papal infallibility, now I feel it.” This is
exactly the attitude of the two leaders whom Providence — may I say in his
unguarded moments — has appointed to lead us. This feeling of supremacy and
infallibility is strengthened by the Press. One cannot help saying that. The
language used by Gardiner to describe the Northcliffe brand of journalism,
in my opinion, quite appropriately describes the present state of journalism
in India. Journalism in India was once a profession. It has now become a
trade. It has no more moral function than the manufacture of soap. It does
not regard itself as the responsible adviser of the Public. To give the news
uncoloured by any motive, to present a certain view of public policy which it
believes to be for the good of the community, to correct and chastise without
fear all those, no matter how high, who have chosen a wrong or a barren
path, is not regarded by journalism in India its first or foremost duty. To
accept a hero and worship him has become its principal duty. Under it,
news gives place to sensation, reasoned opinion to unreasoning passion,
appeal to the minds of responsible people to appeal to the emotions of the
irresponsible. Lord Salisbury spoke of the Northcliffe journalism as written by
office-boys for office-boys. Indian journalism is all that plus something more.
It is written by drum-boys to glorify their heroes. Never has the interest of
country been sacrificed so senselessly for the propagation of hero-worship.
Never has hero-worship become so blind as we see it in India today. There
are, I am glad to say, honourable exceptions. But they are too few and their
voice is never heard. Entrenched behind the plaudits of the Press, the spirit
of domination exhibited by these two great men has transgressed all limits.
By their domination they have demoralised their followers and demoralized
politics. By their domination they have made half their followers fools and
the other half hypocrites. In estabhshing their supremacy they have taken
the aid of “big business” and money magnates. For the first time in our
country money is taking the field as an organised power. The questions
which President Roosevelt propounded for American Public to consider will
arise here, if they have not already arisen : Who shall rule — wealth or
man ? Which shall lead, money or intellect ? Who shall fill public stations,
educated and patriotic free men or the feudal serfs of corporate Capital ?
For the present, Indian politics, at any rate the Hindu part of it, instead of
being spiritualized has become grossly commercialized, so much so that it
has become a byword for corruption. Many men of culture are refusing to
concern themselves in this cesspool. Politics has become a kind of sewage
system intolerably unsavoury and insanitary. To become a politician is like
going to work in the drain.

228

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Politics in the hands of these two great men have become a competition
in extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi is known as Mahatma, Mr. Jinnah must be
known as Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. Jinnah must have
the Muslim League. If the Congress has a Working Committee and the
All-India Congress Committee, the Muslim League must have its Working
Committee and its Council. The session of the Congress must be followed
by a session of the League. II the Congress issues a statement the League
must also follow suit. If the Congress passes a Resolution of 17,000 words,
the Muslim League’s Resolution must exceed it by at least a thousand
words. If the Congress President has a Press Conference, the Muslim League
President must have his. If the Congress must address an appeal to the
United Nations, the Muslim League must not allow itself to be outbidden.
When is all this to end ? When is there to be a settlement ? There are no
near prospects. They will not meet, except on preposterous conditions. Jinnah
insists that Gandhi should admit that he is a Hindu. Gandhi insists that
Jinnah should admit that he is one of the leaders of the Muslims. Never has
there been such a deplorable state of bankruptcy of statesmanship as one
sees in these two leaders of India. They are making long and interminable
speeches, like lawyers whose trade it is to contest everything, concede
nothing and talk by the hour. Suggest anything by way of solution for the
deadlock to either of them, and it is met by an everlasting “Nay”. Neither
will consider a solution of the problems which is not eternal. Between them
Indian politics has become “frozen” to use a well-known Banking phrase and
no political action is possible.

How does Ranade strike as compared to these two ? I have no personal
impression to give. But reading what others have said I think I can say
what he must have been like. He had not a tinge of egotism in him. His
intellectual attainments could have justified any amount of pride, nay even
insolence. But he was the most modest of men. Serious youths were captivated
by his learning and geniality. Many, feeling completely under his sway,
responded to his ennobling influence and moulded their whole lives with
the passionate reverence for their adored master. He refused to be satisfied
with the praises of fools, and was never afraid of moving in the company of
equals and of the give and take it involves, He never claimed to be a mystic
relying on the inner voice. He was a rationalist prepared to have his views
tested in the light of reason and experience. His greatness was natural. He
needed no aid of the stage nor the technique of an assumed eccentricity nor
the means of a subsidized press. As I said, Ranade was principally a social
reformer. He was not a politician in the sense of one who trades in politics.
But he has played an important part in the political advancement of India.
To some of the politicians he acted as the teacher who secured such signal
successes and who dazzled their critics by their brilliance. To some he acted
as the guide, but to all he acted as the philosopher.

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

229

What was the political philosophy of Ranade ? It may be summed up in
three propositions :

(1) We must not set up as our ideal something which is purely imaginary.
An ideal must be such that it must carry the assurance that it is a
practicable one.

(2) In politics, sentiment and temperament of the people are more
important than intellect and theory. This is particularly so in the
matter of framing a Constitution. A constitution is as much a matter
of taste as clothes are. Both must fit, both must please.

(3) In political negotiations the rule must be what is possible. That does
not mean that we should be content with what is offered. No. It
means that you must not refuse what is offered when you know that
your sanctions are inadequate to compel your opponent to concede
more.

These are the three main doctrines of Ranade’s political philosophy.
It would be quite easy to illustrate them by appropriate quotations from
his writings and his speeches. There is no time for that nor is there any
necessity, for they must be clear to every student of Ranade’s speeches and
writings. Who could quarrel with Ranade on these three propositions and
if there be one, on which ? On the first only a visionary will quarrel. We
need not take any notice of him. The second proposition is so evident that
we could only ignore it at our peril. The third proposition is something on
which a difference of opinion is possible. Indeed it is this which divided the
Liberals from the Congressmen. I am not a liberal, but I am sure the view
Ranade held was the right one. There can be no compromise on principle,
and there should not be. But once the principle is agreed upon, there can be
no objection to realize it by instalments. Graduation in politics is inevitable,
and when the principle is accepted it is not harmful and indeed it may in
certain circumstances be quite advantageous. On this third proposition there
was really no difference between him and Tilak, except this : Tilak would
have the possible maximised by the application of sanctions ; Ranade would
look askance at sanctions. This is all. On the rest they were agreed. The
absence of sanctions in Ranade’s political philosophy need not detract much
from its worth. We all know what sanctions are available to us. We have
tried all, old as well as new, with what effect I need not stop to describe.

IX

In celebrating the birthday of Ranade we must not overlook what the
critics and opponents are likely to say. The critics will ask what is the point
in celebrating the birthday of Ranade. That the days of hero-worship are
gone long past will be the line of their argument. The oppenents will say if
I condemn idolatry when it pertains to Mr. Gandhi and to Mr. Jinnah how
do I join in idolizing Mr. Ranade ? These are very pertinent questions. True

230

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

hero-worship is dying. Of that there is no doubt. It was dying even in the
days of Carlyle who indignantly complained against his age saying —

“This is an age that as it were denies the existence of great men : denies
the inevitableness of great men.”

“Show our critics a great man”, he said and “They begin to what they call
‘account for him’; not to worship him but take the dimensions of him.”

But hero-worship is certainly not dead in India. India is still par excellence
the land of idolatry. There is idolatry in religion, there is idolatry in politics.
Heroes and hero-worship is a hard if unfortunate, fact in India’s political life.
I agree that hero-worship is demoralizing for the devotee and dangerous to
the country. I welcome the criticism in so far as it conveys a caution that
you must know that your man is really great before you start worshipping
him. This unfortunately is not an easy task. For in these days, with the
Press in hand, it is easy to manufacture great men. Carlyle used a happy
phrase when he described the great men of history as so many Bank Notes.
Like Bank Notes they represent gold. What we have to see is that they are
not forged notes. I admit that we ought to be more cautious in our worship
of great men. For in this country we have perhaps arrived at such a stage
when alongside the notice boards saying “beware of pickpockets” we need to
have notice boards saying “beware of great men”. Even Carlyle who defended
the worship of great men warned his readers how :

“Multitudes of men have figured in history as great men who were false and
selfish.” He regretted deeply that “The World’s wages (of homage) are pocketed
(by these so-called great men), the World’s work is not done. Heroes have gone
out; quacks have come in.”

Ranade never received the honours of apotheosis as these great men of
India today are destined to receive. How could he ? He did not come with a
message hot from Senai. He performed no miracles and promised no speedy
deliverance and splendour. He was not a genius and he had no superhuman
qualities. But there are compensations. If Ranade did not show splendour
and dominance he brought us no catastrophe. If he had no superhuman
qualities to use in the service of India, India was saved from ruin by its
abuse. If he was not a genius, he did not display that perverse supersubtlety
of intellect and a temper of mind which is fundamentally dishonest and which
has sown the seeds of distrust and which has made settlement so difficult
of achievement. There is nothing exuberant and extravagant in Ranade.
He refused to reap cheap notoriety by playing the part of an extremist.
He refused to mislead people by playing upon and exploiting the patriotic
sentiments of the people. He refused to be a party to methods which are

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

231

crude which have volume but no effect and which are neither fool-proof nor
knave-proof and which break the back even of the most earnest and sincere
servants of the country and disable them from further effort. In short Ranade
was like the wise Captain who knows that his duty is not to play with his
ship clever and masterful tricks, just for effect and show in the midst of the
ocean but to take it safely to its appointed port. In short Ranade was not
a forged bank note and in worshipping him we have no feeling of kneeling
before anything that is false.

In the second place this celebration of Ranade’s birthday is not all an
act of hero-worship. Hero-worship in the sense of expressing our unbounded
admiration is one thing. To obey the hero is a totally different kind of hero-
worship. There is nothing wrong in the former while the latter is no doubt a
most pernicious thing. The former is only man’s respect for everything which
is noble and of which the great man is only an embodiment. The latter is
the villain’s fealty to his lord. The former is consistent with respect, but
the latter is a sign of debasement. The former does not take away one’s
intelligence to think and independence to act. The latter makes one a perfect
fool. The former involves no disaster to the State. The latter is the source
of positive danger to it. In short in celebrating Ranade’s birthday we are
not worshipping a boss who is elected by no one, accountable to no one and
removable by no one, but paying our tribute of admiration to a leader who
led and did not drive people, who sought to give effect to their deliberate
judgment and did not try to impose his own will upon them by trickery or
by violence.

In the third place it is not for hero-worship for which this gathering has
assembled. This is an occasion to remind ourselves of the political philosophy
of Ranade. To my mind it has become necessary to remind ourselves of it
from time to time. For his is a philosophy which is safe and sound, sure if
slow. Even if it does not glitter it is nonetheless gold. Do any have doubt ? If
they have let them ponder over the following utterances of Bismark, Balfour
and Morley. Bismark the great German Statesman said :

“Politics is the game of the possible.”

Balfour in his Introduction to Walter Bagehot’s well-known book on the
English Constitution says :

“If we would find the true basis of the long drawn process which has
gradually converted medieval monarchy into a modern democracy the
process by which so much has been changed and so little destroyed, we
must study temperament and character rather than intellect and theory.
This is a truth which those who recommend the wholesale adoption of
British Institutions in strange lands might remember with advantage. Such
an experiment can hardly be without its dangers. Constitutions are easily
copied ; temperaments are not ; and if it should happen that the borrowed
constitution and the native temperament fail to correspond, the misfit may

232

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

have serious results. It matters little what other gifts a people may possess
if they are wanting in these which, from this point of view, are of most
importance. If, for example, they have no capacity for grading their loyalties
as well as for being moved by them ; If they have no natural inclination
to liberty and no natural respect for law ; If they lack good humour and
tolerate foul play ; If they know not how to compromise or when ; If they have
not that distrust of extreme conclusions which is sometimes misdescribed
as want of logic ; If corruption does not repel them ; and if their divisions
tend to be either too numerous or too profound, the successful working of
British Institutions may be difficult or impossible. It may indeed be least
possible where the arts of Parliamentary persuasion and the dexterities of
party management are brought to their highest perfection.”

Morley has observed :

“To hurry on after logical perfection is to show one’s self-ignorant of the
material of that social structure with which the politician has to deal. To
disdain anything short of an organic change in thought or institution is
infatuation. To be willing to make such changes too frequently, even when
they are possible, is fool-hardiness. That fatal French saying about small
reforms being the worst enemies of great reforms, is, in the sense in which
it is commonly used, a formula of social ruin.”

These are the principles on which success in Politics depends. Are they
different from those which Ranade enunciated ? It bespeaks greatness
in Ranade that he should have propounded them years before Bismark,
Balfour and Morley.

The generation which Ranade served was wise in taking him as its
political guide, friend and philosopher. His greatness lies in the fact that
he can be a guide, friend and philosopher to this present, nay even to
future generations.

There is one charge against Ranade which is frequently made and
which I think must be met. It is said of Ranade that he believed that
the conquest of India by the British was Providential, that it was in the
best interest of India, that she should remain within the British Empire
and that therein lay her final destiny. In short Ranade is accused of
being opposed to India’s Independence.

The charge is founded on the following utterances of Ranade :

“It cannot be easily assumed that in God’s Providence, such vast
multitudes as those who inhabit India were placed centuries together under
influences and restraints of alien domination, unless such influences and
restraints were calculated to do lasting service in the building up of the
strength and character of the people in directions in which the Indian races

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

233

were most deficient. Of one thing we are certain, that after lasting over five
hundred years, the Mohammedan Empire gave way, and made room for the
re-establishment of the old native races in the Punjab, and throughout Central
Hindusthan and Southern India, on foundations of a much more solid character
than those which yielded so easily before the assaults of the early Mohammedan
conquerors.”

“Both Hindus and Mohammedans lack many of those virtues represented
by the love of order and regulated authority. Both are wanting in the love
of municipal freedom, in the exercise of virtues necessary for civic life, and
in aptitudes for mechanical skill, in the love of science and research in the
love and daring of adventurous discovery, the resolution to master difficulties,
and in chivalrous respect for womankind. Neither the old Hindus nor the old
Mohammedan civilization was in a condition to train these virtues in a way
to bring up the races of India on a level with those of Western Europe, and
so the work of education had to be renewed, and it has been now going on for
the past century and more under the Pax Brittanica with results — which all
of us are witnesses to in ourselves.”

A mere glance at these statements is enough to show that the charge is
based on a misunderstanding if not on a misreading of the statements. The
statements are plain and simple and they cannot even by inference be said
to lead to the conclusion that Ranade was opposed to India’s independence.
In that sense the charge is false and without foundation.

These statements of Ranade far from casting any reflection upon his self-
respect testify to his wisdom and to his sagacity. What did Ranade want to
convey by these statements ? As I understand them, I think, Ranade wanted
to convey two things. The first thing he wanted to convey was that the
conquest of India by Britain has given India the time, the opportunity and
the necessary shelter for rebuilding, renovating and repairing her economic
and social structure, to refit herself for bearing the strain of any foreign
aggression when she does become free. The second thing Ranade wanted to
convey was that going out of the British Empire by India before she had
satisfied and solidified herself into a single nation, unified in thought, in
feeling, and charged with a sense of a common destiny, was to invite chaos
and disruption in the name of independence.

How very important these truths are ? People do not realize the part that
shelter plays in the smooth working out of social, economic and political
conflicts which are inevitable in every society which desires to advance.
The late Prof. Maitland was once asked to explain why Parliamentary
Institutions flourished in England but failed to take roots in Europe. His
answer reveals the importance of shelter. He said the difference was due to
the English channel. By this answer what he meant to convey was that by

234

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

reason of the English channel England was immune from foreign aggression
while she was repairing her own body politic and therefore it became safe
for people to fight against their King for Liberty and also safe for the King
to allow it to his people. This importance of shelter was also emphasized by
Abraham Lincoln. In a speech devoted to showing why American Political
Institutions were destined to remain perpetual, Lincoln said :

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined. . . with a Bonaparte

for a Commander, could not by force take a drink from Ohio, or make a track

on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.”

In this Lincoln was also emphasizing the importance and the necessity
for shelter for social reconstruction. India is not a sheltered country as
England and America are. She lies across and on the roads, whether the
roads are land routes, sea routes or air routes. As she has no shelter the
fear is that she will be broken up if she is attacked from outside while she
is engaged in refitting herself. India needs a dry dock as a shelter for the
period of her refitting and the British Empire is a dry dock for her. Who
can say that Ranade was not wise in asking his countrymen to bear in mind
the importance of a shelter which the British Empire can give and which
India needs so much?

A servient nation is always eager to cut the knot and declare its
independence of the dominant nation. But it seldom stops to consider the effect
of independence on itself. Such a consideration is however very important.
It is not often realized that the knot which binds the servient nation to
the dominant nation is more necessary to the servient nation than to the
dominant nation. It depends upon the conditions inside the servient nation.
The servient nation may be one whole. The servient nation may consist of
parts. The parts may be such that they will never become one whole. Or
the parts may be such that they are not yet one whole but if held together
longer they will become one whole. The effect which the cutting of the knot
will have on the servient nation will depend upon the internal condition
of the servient nation. There may be every good in cutting the knot by
a servient nation which is one whole. Nothing good or nothing worse can
happen — depends upon how one looks at it — by the cutting of the knot by a
nation in which the parts can never become one whole. But there is positive
danger in the third case. The premature cutting of the knot is sure to lead
to disintegration where integration is desirable and possible. It would be a
wanton act. This is the second danger which Ranade wanted to caution his
countrymen against.

Who can say that Ranade was not wise in giving this caution ? Those who
are inclined to question its necessity have only to look to China. It is 30 years
since the Chinese Revolution took place. Have the Chinese settled down ? No.
People are still asking “when will the Chinese revolution stop revolving ?”

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

235

and those who know the conditions in China cannot do better than say
“Perhaps in another hundred years.” Has China found a stable Government
having the allegiance of all Chinese ? Far from it. Indeed if truth be told,
China after the revolution has been a land of disunity and disruption far
more than she was ever before. The Revolution has produced a chaos of
such magnitude that her very independence has been put in peril. Few
Indians are aware of the fact that if China has not lost her independence
as a result of the chaos caused by the Revolution it is only because she had
too many enemies who could not agree as to which of them should devour
her. The Chinese Revolution was a great mistake. That was the opinion of
Yuan Shih-k’ai who said :

“I doubt whether the people of China are at present ripe for a Republic or
whether under present conditions a Republic is adapted to the Chinese people...
The adoption of a limited monarchy would bring conditions back to the normal
and would bring stability much more rapidly than that end could be attained
through any experimental form of Government unsuited to the genius of the
people or to the present conditions in China... My only reason for favouring the
retention of the present Emperor is that I believe in a constitutional monarchy.

If we are to have that form of Government, there is nobody else whom the
people would agree upon for his place... My sole aim in this crisis is to save
China from dissolution and the many evils that would follow.”

Those who think that China should be rather a warning to Indians than
an example will, far from accusing Ranade for opposing India’s independence
will be happy that he had the wisdom to foresee the evils of a premature
revolution and warn his countrymen against taking a similar step.

X

Posterity is always interested in the last words and last regrets of great
men. The last words of great men are not always significant of their experience
of this world or their vision of the next. For instance the last thoughts of
Socrates were to call Crito and say, “We owe a cock to Aesculapius; discharge
the debt, and by no means omit it.” But their last regrets are always
significant and worth pondering over. Take the case of Napoleon. Napoleon
before his death at St. Helena showed evidence of being uneasy over three
capital points which constituted his last regrets. They were: that he could
not have died at some supreme moment of his career ; that he left Egypt
and gave up his Eastern ambitions ; and last but by no means the least his
defeat at Waterloo. Had Ranade any supreme regrets ? One thing is certain
that Ranade if he had any, could not have the same regrets such as those
which disturbed the peace of mind of Napoleon. Ranade lived for service and
not for glory. It mattered very little to him whether the moment of his death
was glorious or inglorious or whether he died as a hero, as a conqueror or

236

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a master or whether he died as a common man sometimes does of common
cold. As a matter of fact Ranade was not troubled by any regrets. So far as
record goes Ranade does not seem to be conscious of any act or event about
which he had any regrets. He died a happy and a peaceful death. But it is
worth-while asking could Ranade have any regrets if he came to life today ?
I am sure there is one matter over which he will feel extremely grieved —
namely the present condition of the Liberal Party in India.

What is the present position of the Liberal Party in India ? The Liberal
Party is a casualty. Indeed this is a very mild expression. The Liberals are
“the contemptibles” of Indian politics. To use the language of Norton used
in another connection they are disowned by the people, unowned by the
Government, having the virtues of neither, but possessing the vices of both.
There was a time when the Liberal Party was the rival of the Congress.
Today the relation of the Liberal Party to the Congress is that of a dog to
his master. Occasionally the dog barks at his master but for the most part
of his life he is content to follow him. What is the Liberal Party if not the
tail of the Congress ? Many are asking, why do not the Liberals merge in
the Congress — so useless has their existence become. How can Ranade help
not regretting the collapse of the Liberal Party ? How can any Indian help
regretting it ?

The collapse of the Liberal Party is a tragedy to the Liberals. But it is
really a disaster to the country. The existence of a party is so essential to
a popular Government that it is impossible to conceive the possibility of
getting on without it. As an eminent American historian says :

“It is easier to imagine the demolition of any part of our constitutional
organization, the submersion of a large part of what the constitution describes,
than to imagine our getting on without political combinations : they are our
vital institutions.”

Indeed to attempt to govern a country by the mass of voters without the
control and discipline of a Party is, to use the language of James Bryce :

“Like attempting to manage a rail-board by the votes of uniformed share
holders, or to lay the course of a sailing ship by the votes of the passengers.”

It is undeniable that a party is an essential adjunct to Popular Government.
But it is equally undeniable that the rule of a single party is fatal to Popular
Government. In fact it is a negation of Popular Government. The case of
Germany and Italy furnish the most cogent evidence on this point. Instead of
taking a warning from the totalitarian States we are taking them as models
to copy. The one party system is being hailed in this country in the name
of national solidarity. Those who are doing so are failing to take note of the
possibilities of tyranny as well as the possibilities of misdirection of public
affairs which is inherent in the one party Government. To have Popular

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

237

Government run by a single party is to let democracy become a mere
form for despotism to play its part from behind it. How under one party
Government the tyranny of the majority ceases to be an empty phrase
and becomes a menacing fact has been our experience, in India, under
the Congress Regime. Were we not told by Mr. Rajgopalachariar that the
separation of the Executive and the Judiciary which was necessary under
the British is no longer necessary ? Does it not show the Despot’s taste for
blood ? Despotism does not cease to be despotism because it is elective. Nor
does despotism become agreeable because the Despots belong to our own
kindred. To make it subject to election is no guarantee against despotism.
The real guarantee against despotism is to confront it with the possibility
of its dethronement, of its being laid low, of its being superseded by a rival
party. Every Government is liable to error of judgment, great many liable
to bad administration and not a few to corruption, injustice and acts of
oppression and bad faith. No Government ought to be free from criticism.
But who can criticize a Government ? Left to individuals it can never be
done. Sir Toby has left behind advice as to how one should deal with one’s
enemy. He said : “soon, so soon as ever thou seest him, draw, and as thou
drawest, swear horrible” But this is not possible for an individual who
wants to stand up against a Government. There are various things against
individuals successfully playing that part. There is in the first place what
Bryce calls the fatalism of the multitude, that tendency to acquiesce and
submit due to the sense of insignificance of individual effort, the sense of
helplessness arising from the belief that the affairs of men are swayed by
large forces whose movements cannot be turned by individual effort. In
the second place there is possibility of the tyranny of the majority which
often manifests in suppressing and subjecting to penalties and other social
disabilities persons who do not follow the majority, of which some of us have
good experience during the Congress regime. In the third place there is the
fear of the C.I.D. The Gestapo and all the other instrumentalities which are
at the disposal of the Government to shadow its critics and to silence them.

The secret of freedom is courage, and courage is born in combination
of individuals into a party. A party is necessary to run Government. But
two parties are necessary to keep Government from being a despotism. A
democratic Government can remain democratic only if it is worked by two
parties — a party in power and a party in opposition. As Jennings puts it :

“If there is no opposition there is no democracy. ‘His Majesty’s Opposition’

is no idle phrase. His Majesty needs an opposition as well as a Government.”

In the light of these considerations who could deny that the collapse of
the Liberal Party in India is not a major disaster ? Without the resusciation
of the Liberal Party or the formation of another party the fight for freedom

238

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

will result in loss of freedom for despotism is antithetical of freedom whether
the despotism is native or foreign. It is a pity Indians have lost sight of this
fact. But I have no doubt those who are shouting that the Congress is the
only party and that the Congress is the nation will live to rue their decision.

Why has the Liberal Party collapsed? Is there something wrong in the
Philosophy of Ranade ? Is there anything wrong with the men in the Liberal
Party ? Or is the working of the Liberal Party at fault ? I for one hold that
there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the philosophy of Ranade. Nor
can it be said that of the two the Congress has the best cause and the
Liberal Party the best men. The Liberal Party has both. To my mind what
has brought about the collapse of the Liberal Party is the complete lack of
organization.

It may not be without interest to expose the weaknesses in the organization
of the Liberal Party.

As pointed out by Pendleton Herring in his volume on Politics of Democracy
the organization of a party is spread over three concentric rings. The centre
ring represents the oligarchy in control of the party organization — what is
called the High Command. There are associated with it, its workers who
are primarily concerned with securing their livelihood through the party
organization whether as party officials or through public office. They are
called professional politicians and constitute the party machine. Surrounding
this inner group — the High Command and the machine — there is a large
circle of persons bound to the party by ties of tradition and emotional
loyalty. They think of the principles professed by the party. They are more
concerned with its ideals and symbols than with the acts of the professional
party workers and leaders. They vote for the party ideal rather than for the
party record. Outside this second ring lies that vast body of people who are
not attached to any party. It is a floating population. The reason for their
being unattached is either because they are aimless, thoughtless or because
they have particular interests which are not included in the platform of
any party. Those outside the second ring constitute the most vital field of
action for a political party. They are the prize which a party must capture.
To capture this prize it is not enough to enunciate principles and formulate
policies. Men are not interested in principles and policies. But they are
interested in accomplishing things. What is necessary for a party is to bring
about concerted action. For in the words of President Woodrow Wilson, given
Self-Government with a majority rule, things can be accomplished not by
individual voice but by concerted action. Now for concerted action what is
necessary is the crystallization of individual opinions into public opinion.
This crystallization or building up of public opinion as a sanction behind a
particular principle becomes the main functions of a party. Theoretically,
political parties are agencies for the expression and execution of public
opinion but in practice parties create, direct, influence and often control

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

239

public opinion. Indeed this is the chief function of a party. For this, a party
must do two things. In the first place it must establish contact with the
masses. It must go out among the masses with its wares — its principles,
policies, ideas and candidates. In the second place it must carry on propaganda
among the masses in favour of its wares. It must animate them and enlighten
them, to quote Bryce again “Give the voters some knowledge of the political
issues they have to decide, to inform them of their leaders, and the crimes
of their opponents”. These are the basic factors from which concerted action
can arise. A party which fails to forge concerted action has no right to call
itself a party.

Which of these things the Liberal Party has done as an organization? The
Liberal Party has only the High Command. It has no machine. Not having
any machine the high command is only a shadow. Its following is confined
to that second concentric ring consisting of persons who are bound by ties
of tradition. The leaders have nothing to evoke emotional loyalty. They have
no war-cry to gather a crowd. The Liberal Party does not believe in mass
contact. It would be difficult to imagine a party so completely isolated and
insulated from the main mass of people. It does not believe in conversion.
Not that it has no Gospel to preach ; but like the Hindu religion it is a
non-proselytising creed. It believes in the formulation of principles and
policies. But it does not work for giving effect to them. Propaganda and
concerted action are anathema to the Liberal Party. Individual voices and
annual meetings and clamour for invitation when a Cripps arrives or when
the Viceroy decides to invite important individuals have become the limits
of its political activity.

Is there any wonder if the Liberal Party has fallen into disrepute ? The
Liberal Party has forgotten the most elementary fact that organization is
essential for the accomplishment of any purpose and particularly in politics
where the harnessing of so many divergent elements in a working unity is
so great.

Who is responsible for this collapse of the Liberal Party in India ?
However much we may regret to have to say it, I think it will have to be
admitted that the responsibility for this catastrophe does to some extent fall
on Ranade. Ranade belonged to the Classes. He was born and bred among
them. He never became a man of masses. The Liberal Party has no machine
and the reason why it did not forge a machine is because it did not believe
in mass contact. This aversion to mass contact is the legacy of Ranade. In
avoiding mass contact the party is following the tradition left by Ranade.
There is another legacy of Ranade to the Liberal Party and that relates to
the false faith in the driving force of principles and policies. Mazzini once
said : “You may kill men, you cannot kill a great idea.” To me it appears
to be a most mistaken view. Men are mortal. So are ideas. It is wrong to
hold that an idea will take roots pro prio-vigore. An idea needs propagation

240

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

as much as a plant needs watering. Both will otherwise wither and die.
Ranade agreed with Mazzini and did not believe that the fructification of
an idea needed the resources of strenuous husbandry. If the Liberal Party
is content with mere formulation of principles and policies it is also because
of this tradition of Ranade.

What is the duty of the Liberals. All Liberals I know will say our duty
is to follow the master. What else could be the attitude of a devout band of
disciples ? But can anything be more mistaken or more uncritical ? Such an
attitude implies two things. It means that a great man works by imposing
his maxims on his disciples. It means that the disciples should not be wiser
than the master. Both these conclusions are wrong. They do injustice to
the master. No great man really does his work by crippling his disciple by
forcing on them his maxims or his conclusions. What a great man does is
not to impose his maxims on his disciples. What he does is to evoke them,
to awaken them to a vigorous and various exertion of their faculties. Again
the pupil only takes his guidance from his master. He is not bound to
accept his master’s conclusions. There is no ingratitude in the disciple not
accepting the maxims or the conclusions of his master. For even when he
rejects them he is bound to acknowledge to his master in deep reverence
“You awakened me to be myself : for that I thank you.” The master is not
entitled to less. The disciple is not bound to give more.

It is therefore wrong to the master as well as to himself for the disciple
to bind himself to the maxims and conclusions of his Master. His duty is to
know the principles and if he is convinced of their value and their worth,
to spread them. That is the wish of every Master. Jesus wished it, Buddha
wished it. I am sure the same must be the wish of Ranade. It follows that
if the Liberals have faith in, and love and respect for Ranade their supreme
duty lies not merely in assembling together to sing his praises but in
organising themselves for spreading the Gospel of Ranade.

What hope is there of the Liberals coming forward to fulfil this duty?
Signs are very depressing. In the last election the Liberals did not even
contest the seats. That of course is in itself a matter of some surprise. But
this pales into nothing when one recalls the announcement made by the
Rt. Hon’ble Srinivas Shastri — the Leading Light of the Liberal Party — that
he wished the Congress to succeed ! ! There is no parallel to this except
in the treacherous and treasonous conduct of Bhishma who lived on the
bounty of the Kauravas but wished and worked for success to their enemies
the Pandavas. This shows even the Liberals had lost faith in the gospel of
Ranade. If this is the general condition of health of the Liberal Party it is
better if the party died. It would clear the way for a new orientation and
spare us the tedium of idle clatter of liberals and liberalism. For such an
event even Ranade may express satisfaction from his grave.

PART IV

ON CONSTITUTIONAL
REFORMS

7

EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE

SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

ON

FRANCHISE

Examined on : 27th January 1919

From, the Report of the Reforms Committee (Franchise)
Vol. II, 1919

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

The Committee was constituted as under :

The Rt. Hon. Lord Southborough, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., G.C.M.C. (Chairman).
Sir Frank G. Sly, K.C.S.I., I.C.S.

Sahibzada Aftab Ahmed Khan.

The Hon’ble Babu Surendranath Banerjea.

The Hon’ble Mr. M. N. Hogg.

W. M. Hailey, Esq., C.S.I., C.I.E., I.C.S.

The Hon’ble Mr. Srinivasa Sastri (Not present on 25-1-1919 and 27-1-1919).
And the following added members :

L. C. Crump, Esq., I.C.S.

K. Natarajan, Esq.

P. C. Tallents, Esq., I.C.S. ( Secretary ).

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

WRITTEN STATEMENT

“The most difficult and the most momentous question of Government
(is) how to transmit the force of individual opinion and preference into
public action. This is the crux of popular institutions.” So says Professor
A.B. Hart. But this is only half the definition of popular Government. It
is therefore necessary to emphasize the other half which is equal if not
more in importance. As the Government is the most important field for the
exercise of individual capacities, it is in the interest of the people that no
person as such should be denied the opportunity of actively participating
in the process of Government. That is to say popular Government is not
only Government for the people but by the people. To express the same
in a different way, representation of opinions by itself is not sufficient to
constitute popular Government. To cover its true meaning it requires personal
representation as well. It is because the former is often found without the
latter that the Franchise Committee has to see in devising the franchises
and constituencies for a popular Government in India, it provides for both,
i.e., representation of opinions and representation of persons. Any scheme
of franchise and constituency that fails to bring this about fails to create a
popular Government.

2. Success in this task will ultimately depend upon the accuracy of the
de facto conception of the society which is to be given the popular form of
Government. De facto India was well portrayed by Lord Dufferin when he
described it as a ...

“Population . . . composed of a large number of distinct nationalities,
professing various religions, practising diverse rites, speaking different
languages, while many of them ... still further separated from one another
by discordant prejudices, by conflicting sources of usages, and even
antagonistic material interests. But perhaps the most patent characteristic

248

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of our Indian cosmos is its division into two mighty political communities as
distant from each other as the poles apart — On the one hand the Hindus — with
their elaborate caste distinctions — on the other hand, the Mohammedans — with
their social equality. To these must be added a host of minor nationalities
most of them numbering millions — almost as widely differentiated from one
another by ethnological or political distinctions as are the Hindus from the
Mohammedans, such as Sikhs, with their warlike habits and traditions and
their enthusiastic religious beliefs, the Rohillas, the Pathans, the Assamese,
the Baluchis and other wild and martial tribes on our frontiers, the hillmen
dwelling in the folds of the Himalayas, our subjects in Burma, Mongol in
race and Buddhist in religion, the Gonds, Mhars, Bheels and other non-
Aryan people in the centre and south of India, and the enterprising Parsees,
with their rapidly developing manufactures and commercial interests. Again,
amongst these numerous communities may be found, at one and the same
moment, all the various stages of civilization through which mankind has
passed from the pre-historic ages to the present days.”

3. Englishmen have all along insisted that India is unfit for
representative Government because of the division of her population into
castes and creeds. This does not carry conviction with the advanced wing
of Indian politicians. When they say that there are also social divisions
in Europe as there are in India they are amply supported by facts. The
social divisions of India are equalled, if not outdone, in a country like
the United States of America. Corresponding to those in the former, we
have in the latter men bonded together in a criminal conspiracy and trust
or combinations that prey upon the public. Not only are there political
sub-divisions but also industrial, scientific, and religious associations,
differing in their aims and their attitudes towards each other. Apart
from political parties with diverse ends, social sets, cliques and gangs
we find in the United States of America more permanent divisions of the
population such as the Poles, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, Russians, etc.,
each with its own language, religious and moral codes and traditions. If
social divisions unfit a country for representative Government, it should
unfit the United States of America as much as India. But if with all the
social divisions, the United States of America is fit for representative
Government, why not India ? Ask the Indian politicians, so entrenched,
it is difficult to dislodge them, and show that the social divisions of India
are of a different kind or grant them their contention. Without these two
there is no third alternative possible.

4. In my opinion their contention cannot be granted for the social
divisions of India do matter in politics. How they matter can be best shown
by understanding when they don’t matter. Men live in a community by
virtue of the things they have in common. What they must have in common
in order to form a community are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge,

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

249

a common understanding ; or to use the language of the Sociologists,
they must be like-minded. But how do they come to have these things in
common or how do they become like-minded ? Certainly, not by sharing
with another as one would do in the case of a piece of cake. To cultivate
an attitude similar to others or to be like-minded with others is to be in
communication with them or to participate in their activity. Persons do not
become like-minded by merely living in physical proximity, any more than
they cease to be like-minded by being distant from each other. Participation
in a group is the only way of being like-minded with the group. Each group
tends to create its own distinctive type of like-mindedness, but where there
are more groups than one to be brought into political union, there would
be conflict among the differently like-minded. And so long as the groups
remain isolated the conflict is bound to continue and prevent the harmony
of action. It is the isolation of the groups that is the chief evil. Where the
groups allow of endosmosis they cease to be evil. For endosmosis among
the groups makes possible a resocialization of once socialized attitudes. In
place of the old, it creates a new like-mindedness, which is representative
of the interests, aims, and aspirations of all the various groups concerned.
Like-mindedness is essential for an harmonious life, social or political and,
as has just been shown, it depends upon the extent of communication,
participation or endosmosis. Applying this test to the divisions in India,
we must pronounce upon them as constituting an obstacle in the path of
realizing an harmonious political life.

5. The groups or divisions each with its set like-mindedness that are sure
to be in conflict may be given as follows :

(1) Hindus;

(2) Mohammedans ;

(3) Christians ;

(4) Parsees;

(5) Jews, etc.

Except the Hindus the rest of the divisions are marked by such complete
freedom of communication from within that we may expect their members
to be perfectly like-minded with respect to one another. Regarding the
Hindus, however, the analysis must be carried on a little farther. The
significant fact about the Hindus is that before they are Hindus they are
members of some caste. The castes are so exclusive and isolated that the
consciousness of being a Hindu would be the chief guide of a Hindu’s
activity towards non-Hindu. But as against a Hindu of a different caste
his caste-consciousness would be the chief guide of activity. From this, it is
plain that as between two Hindus, caste-like-mindedness is more powerful
than the like-mindedness due to their both being Hindus. Thus from within
the Hindus, as from without, there is likely to be a conflict of like-minded
persons. There are some who argue that this conflict runs through the whole

250

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

gamut of the caste system. But this is protesting too much. From the point of
view of communication the Hindus, in spite of castes, divide themselves into
two significant groups — the touchables and the untouchables. The touchables
have enough communication between them to enable us to say that the
conflict of like-mindedness so far as they are concerned is not much to be
dreaded. But there is a real difference and consequent conflict between the
like-mindedness of the touchables and the untouchables. Untouchability is
the strongest ban on the endosmosis between them. Their complete isolation
accounts for the acuteness of the difference of like-mindedness.

The real social divisions of India then are :

(1) Touchable Hindus.

(2) Untouchable Hindus.

(3) Mohammedans.

(4) Christians.

(5) Parsees.

(6) Jews.

6. It will not do good to ignore these real divisions in devising a system
of policy, if the policy is to take the form of popular Government. But if the
success of popular Government depends upon how well the constituencies
and franchises transmit the social forces and how well they secure personal
representation ; we must first study the form which the conflict between
these groups will assume in an election.

7. In a territorial constituency, which will group together voters
belonging to the above groups, a majority of votes will declare a candidate
to be a representative for the constituency in question. Now the question
arises : is such a candidate, a true representative of the groups, covered
by the territorial constituency ? Is he a true mirror of the mind of the
constituency ? Is he a representative of all the interests in the constituency ?
To be concrete, will a Hindu candidate represent Mohammedan interests ?
At this stage it must be recalled that the various divisions described above
are held together by a community of interests which are non-secular or
purely religious. We cannot say that each division is held together by a
community of interests which are secular or material. If so, then for secular
purposes the groups will be broken up. From the point of view of material
interests, there are no such people as Mohammedans, Parsees, Hindus, etc.
There will be in each of these groups landlords, labourers, capitalists, free
traders, protectionists, etc., each of the groups having community of interests
which are material will be composed of Hindus, Mohammedans, Parsees,
etc. Consequently, a Hindu candidate can very well represent the material
interests of the Mohammedans and vice versa. There is thus no conflict of
material interest in the main among the communities as such. If we suppose
that religious interests in future will occupy a subordinate place in the

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

251

affairs of men, the secular interests of a group can be well represented by
a candidate from another group.

8. From this point of view a territorial constituency will be sufficient
for a popular Government. A little more consideration will show that it
will be sufficient for only one-half the definition of popular Government.
How true it is, will be shown presently. In an electoral fight between the
various groups in a territorial constituency the voters will discriminate in
favour of a candidate with whom they are in sympathy. But with whom
they will be in sympathy is determined for them in advance. Given two
candidates belonging to different groups but purporting to represent the
same interest, the voters will mark their votes on the person belonging to
the same community. Any group yielding a large number of electors will
have its own candidate elected. This discrimination on the part of the voters,
though it may not leave unrepresented the interests of the members of the
minor groups, leaves them without any chance of personal representation.

9. To those who are busy in devising schemes for the proper and adequate
representation of interests and opinions dilating on the importance of
personal representation is likely to seem idle. But personal representation
is not therefore unimportant. In recent times “Government for the people”
has claimed more attention than “Government by the people”. In fact there
are instances to show that “Government for the people” can exist in the best
sense of the phrase without there being a “Government by the people.” Yet
all political theorists will unanimously condemn such a form of Government.
And the why of it is important to know. It will be granted that each kind
of association, as it is an educative environment, exercises a formative
influence on the active dispositions of its members. Consequently, what one
is as a person is what one is as associated with others. A Government for
the people, but not by the people, is sure to educate some into masters and
others into subjects; because it is by the reflex effects of association that one
can feel and measure the growth of personality. The growth of personality
is the highest aim of society. Social arrangement must secure free initiative
and opportunity to every individual to assume any role he is capable of
assuming provided it is socially desirable. A new rule is a renewal and
growth of personality. But when an association — and a Government is after
all an association — is such that in it every role cannot be assumed by all, it
tends to develop the personality of the few at the cost of the many — a result
scrupulously to be avoided in the interest of Democracy. To be specific, it is
not enough to be electors only. It is necessary to be law-makers ; otherwise
who can be law-makers will be masters of those who can only be electors.

10. Territorial constituencies are therefore objected to, and rightly, on
the ground that they do nothing to prevent this absurd outcome. They
erroneously suppose that electors will vote on the programmes of the

252

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

candidates without any regard for their persona. As a matter of fact, the
electors before they are electors are primarily members of a group. The
persona of the candidates does matter with them. Naturally, therefore, as
members of a group they prefer the candidate who belongs to their group
to another candidate who does not belong to their group though both of
them claim to represent the same interest. As a result of this preference
the electors of a large group are destined to rise to a higher position of
becoming eventual law-makers, while the electors of a smaller group for no
fault of theirs are doomed to a lower position of remaining electors. One crux
of popular Government is the representation of interests and opinions. The
other crux is personal representation. Territorial constituencies fail to create
popular Government because they fail to secure personal representation to
members of minor groups.

11. If this is a correct analysis as to how the social divisions operate to the
prejudice of the political life of some communities, never was a more improper
remedy advocated to meet the situation than proportional representation.
Proportional representation is intended to give proportionate representation
to views. It presupposes that voters vote for a candidate because of his views
and not because of his persona. Proportional representation is ill-suited for
the purpose in hand.

12. We have therefore two possible methods of meeting the situation :
either to reserve seats in plural constituencies for those minorities that cannot
otherwise secure personal representation or grant communal electorates. Both
have their usefulness. So far as the representation of the Mohammedans is
concerned, it is highly desirable that they should participate in a general
election with seats reserved for them in plural constituencies. The angularity
of the division that separates the Hindus and Mohammedans is already
sharp and communal representation, it may be urged, sharpens it the
more. Communal election, however, seems to be a settled fact, so far as the
Mohammedans are concerned and nothing is likely to alter it, even though
alteration is likely to be beneficial.

13. But this argument is mainly intended to concern itself with the
representation of the Hindus in general, and of the untouchable Hindus in
particular. The discussion of the representation of the Hindus may be best
introduced by a quotation which expresses the newer consciousness that has
arisen in the various Hindu groups. It is said :

“A community may claim representation only on the ground of separate interests
which require protection. In India, such interests are of three kinds only : either
they arise out of religious antipathies which are pretty strong in India, or out of
the backward state of a community in educational matters, or out of the socio-
religious disabilities to which a community may be subject. Confining ourselves
to the Hindu communities there are certain communities who, besides being very

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

253

backward, are suffering under a great social tyranny. The untouchable classes
must have their own men in the Council Hall to fight for the redress of their
grievances. The non-Brahmins as a class are subjected to the social and
intellectual domination of the Brahmin priesthood and may therefore rightly
advocate separate representation.”

14. From this it will be seen that the new consciousness among the Hindus
while acknowledging the separate interests of the untouchables does not
accept the position that the touchable Hindus form a group by themselves.
The new consciousness insists on dividing the touchable group into Brahmins
and non-Brahmins each with its own separate interests. Separate electorates
or reserved seats in mixed electorates are demanded for the three groups
in which the Hindus are divided. Before dealing with the problems of the
representation of the untouchables something will be said on the question
of the Brahmins and non-Brahmins.

15. That the non-Brahmins are “backward in educational matters” cannot
be said in any way to be their special interest. It is the general interest of
all even of those Brahmins who are educationally backward. “The intellectual
and social domination of the Brahmins” is not a matter that affects the
non-Brahmins alone. It affects all and it is therefore the interest of all.
What remains then as a special interest for the non-Brahmins to require
their protection ?

The case for separate representation for non-Brahmins fails because they
cannot prove to have a common non-Brahmin interest.

16. But do they fail to secure personal representation ?

This can be best shown by reference to figures —

Group I

Group II

Caste of
Local Board
voters

No. of voters
for the Local
Boards of the
districts of
Belgaum,
Bijapur and
Dharwar 2

Total

population
of the three
districts

No. of voters
for the Local
Boards of
the

districts of
Ratnagiri
and
Kolaba

Total

population
of the two
districts

1

2

3

4

5

Brahmins

4,600

85,739

4,477

89,786

Lingayats

12,730

933,123

Marathas

1,074

255,526

3,667

446,077

Mahars

22

196,751

33

138,738

Mohammedans

661

295,838

1,169

106,273

Others

4,241

1,065,821

2,837

1,016,930

Total

23,328

2,832,798

12,183

1,797,804

254

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Reducing the above figures to the basis of a thousand we have the following
interesting result :

Group I Group II

Names of Castes

Propor-
tion of
popula-
tion of
a caste
to every
thousand
of the
popula-
tion
covered

Propor-
tion of
voters of
a caste
to every
thousand
of the
popula-
tion of
the same
caste

Propor-
tion of
voters of
a caste
to every
thousand
of voters

Propor-
tion of
popula-
tion of
a caste
to every
thousand
of the
popula-
tion
covered

Propor-
tion of
voters of
a caste
to every
thousand
of the
popula-
tion of
the same
caste

Propor-
tion of
voters of
a caste
to every
thousand
of voters

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Brahmins

30.2

53.7

197.2

50.8

49.8

367.4

Lingayats

329.4

13.6

545.7

Marathas

90.2

4.2

46.0

248.8

8.2

300.9

Mahars

69.5

0.1

0.9

74.5

0.2

2.7

Mohammedans . .

104.4

2.2

28.3

59.2

10.9

95.9

Others

376.2

3.9

181.3

562.2

2.8

232.8

So arranged, the conclusions to be drawn from these figures are highly
important.

(1) The Brahmins, given a uniform franchise for all, though a small
minority so far as numbers are concerned becomes a majority so far
as the total of voters is concerned as is the case in Group II.

(2) Though with an uniform franchise the non-Brahmin communities
like the Lingayats and Marathas do not fail to figure on the voters’
list, the proportion of their voters to their population is insignificant
as compared with the proportion which the Brahmin voters bear to
the Brahmin population.

17. The proportion of the Brahmins to their voters is really extravagant.
It is justified neither by faith in them nor by their own numbers. The
Lingayats though they can legitimately complain that the proportion of
their voters is small will succeed in securing personal representation. The
Marathas though larger in numbers than the Brahmins, besides the very
small proportion of their voters suffer on the voters' list and very likely will
fail to secure personal representation for themselves.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

255

So argued, the case for special provision of the Marathas can be sustained
and should be admitted.

18. The question is in what form the provision should take. In my
opinion such provision instead of taking the form of separate electorates of
reserved seats should take the form of a low pitched franchise. The franchise
for the non-Brahmin should be lower than that for the Brahmin. By this
arrangement the Marathas would improve their position on the voters’ list
and the altogether favoured position of the Brahmin would be equalized. It is
in the interest of all that the Brahmin should not play such a preponderant
part in politics as he has been doing hitherto. He has exerted a pernicious
influence on the social life of the country and it is in the interest of all that
his pernicious influence should be kept at a minimum in politics. As he is
the most exclusive he is most anti-social.

19. Even the authors of the report on constitutional reforms are not in
favour of a limited or uniform franchise. They say, “We consider that the
limitations of the franchise, which it is obviously desirable to make as
broad as possible, should be determined rather with reference to practical
difficulties than to any prior considerations as to the degree of education
or amount of income which may be held to constitute a qualification. It is
possible that owing to unequal distribution of population and wealth it may
be necessary to differentiate the qualifications for a vote not merely between
provinces, but between different parts of the same province” (P. 147) To this
I should like to add that we should differentiate the qualifications for a vote
not merely between provinces or parts thereof but between communities
of the same province. Without this differentiation some communities with
a small but wealthy or educated population will secure more votes than a
large community consisting of poor and uneducated members. Uniformity
in franchise should be dispensed with. An important result will be that
communal representation or reservation of seats for some non-Brahmin
communities who are now clamouring for it would be avoided.

20. The untouchables are usually regarded as objects of pity but they are
ignored in any political scheme on the score that they have no interests to
protect. And yet their interests are the greatest. Not that they have large
property to protect from confiscation. But they have their very persona
confiscated. The socio religious disabilities have dehumanized the untouchables
and their interests at stake are therefore the interests of humanity. The
interests of property are nothing before such primary interests.

21. If one agrees with the definition of slave as given by Plato, who
defines him as one who accepts from another the purposes which control
his conduct, the untouchables are really slaves. The untouchables are so
socialized as never to complain of their low estate. Still less do they ever
dream of trying to improve their lot, by forcing the other classes to treat

256

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

them with that common respect which one man owes to another. The idea
that they have been born to their lot is so ingrained in their mind that it
never occurs to them to think that their fate is anything but irrevocable.
Nothing will ever persuade them that men are all made of the same clay,
or that they have the right to insist on better treatment than that meted
out to them.

22. The exact description of the treatment cannot be attempted. The
word untouchable is an epitome of their ills and sufferings. Not only has
untouchability arrested the growth of their personality but also it comes in
the way of their material well-being. It has also deprived them of certain
civil rights. For instance, in Konkan the untouchables are prohibited from
using the public road. If some high caste man happens to cross him, he has
to be out of the way and stand at such a distance that his shadow will not
fall on the high caste man. The untouchable is not even a citizen. Citizen
ship is a bundle of rights such as (1) personal liberty, (2) personal security,
(3) rights to hold private property, (4) equality before law, (5) liberty of
conscience, (6) freedom of opinion and speech, (7) right of assembly, (8) right
of representation in a country’s Government and (9) right to hold office under
the State. The British Government by gradual growth may be said to have
conceded these rights at least in theory to its Indian subjects. The right
of representation and the right to hold office under the State are the two
most important rights that make up citizenship. But the untouchability of
the untouchables puts these rights far beyond their reach. In a few places
they do not even possess such insignificant rights as personal liberty and
personal security, and equality before law is not always assured to them.
These are the interests of the untouchables. And as can be easily seen they
can be represented by the untouchables alone. They are distinctively their
own interests and none else can truly voice them. A free trade interest can
be voiced by a Brahmin, a Mohammedan or a Maratha equally well. But
none of these can speak for the interests of the untouchables because they
are not untouchables. Untouchability constitutes a definite set of interests
which the untouchables alone can speak for. Hence it is evident that we
must find the untouchables to represent their grievances which are their
interests and, secondly, we must find them in such numbers as will constitute
a force sufficient to claim redress.

23. Now, will a general territorial electorate provided for the adequate
return of the untouchables to the law-making body ? Referring back to
the figures we find that the untouchables (represented in the table by the
Mahars), though they formed 69.4 in every thousand of the population, did
not claim even a voter from their class. Under such circumstances it is
impossible for them to elect their own man in a general electorate. On the
other hand they must despair of any votes being cast by the touchable Hindus
for an untouchable candidate. The gradation of castes produces a certain

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

257

theological basis which cuts the untouchables both ways : in the minds
of the lower orders it creates a preference for the higher orders while it
creates a contempt for the lower orders in the minds of the higher orders.
Thus the ascending scale of preference and the descending scale of hatred
and contempt beggars the untouchables both ways. Without giving a single
vote to the untouchables the touchables are sure to make a large draft on
the already meagre voting strength of the untouchables.

24. So situated, the untouchables with the largest interests at stake will
be the greatest sufferers in a general territorial electorate. To give them
an opening, special provision shall have to be made for their adequate
representation. But before a scheme can be outlined it is necessary to see
how much is the untouchable population in the Bombay Presidency. The
Census Report for the Bombay Presidency for the year 1911 gives the
following figures for castes which “cause pollution” :

Bhungis
Chamars
Mochis V
Machigars
Sochis
Mhars
Holiyas
Dheds
Mangs I
Madigs J

To this must be added the
Dhors amounting to . . . . . . 13,506

Total Untouchables . . 2,158,699

The following figures give the distribution of the untouchables by districts :

District

Total

population

1911

Total

Hindu

population

Total

untouchable

Population

Percentage
of un-
touchables
to the total
population

Percentage
of un-
touchables
to the
Hindu
population

i

2

3

4

5

6

British Districts (exclu-
ding Aden).

19,628,477

14,920,267

1,627,980

8

10.9

1. Bombay City

979,445

664,042

89,052

9

11.6

Northern Division

3,685,383

3,117,263

245,050

6.6

7.8

2. Ahmedabad

827,809

693,155

78,869

10

11.4

3. Broach

306,717

192,935

22,390

7

11.6

93,691

306,478

1,470,992

274,037

Total . . 2,145,193

258 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

1

2

3

4

5

6

4. Kaira

691,744

598,164

41,497

5.9

6.9

5. Panch Mahals

332,695

274,339

14,410

4

5

6. Surat

654,109

571,745

36,509

5.6

6

7. Thana

882,309

786,925

50,010

5.6

6

Central Division

6,387,064

5,993,828

7,73,184

12

13

8. Ahmednagar

945,305

855,676

116,929

12

13.6

9. Khandesh (East)

1,034,886

902,131

112,391

10.8

12

10. Khandesh (West)

580,723

474,200

36,809

6

7.7

11. Nasik

905,030

843,705

97,740

10.7

11

12. Poona

1,071,512

991,725

113.118

12.4

13.3

13. Satara

1,081,278

1,028,176

144,688

13

14

14. Sholapur

768,330

703,215

129,063

16.7

18

Southern Division

5,061,150

4,502,708

385,470

7.6

8.5

15. Belgaum

943,820

817,797

83,199

8.8

10.1

16. Bijapur

862,973

757,542

80,501

9

10.6

17. Dharwar

1,026,005

872,885

52,540

5

6

18. Kanara

430,548

383,624

10,767

2.4

2.9

19. Kolaba

594,156

560,266

51,108

8.5

9.1

20. Ratnagiri

1,203,638

1.110,594

107,354

8.9

9.7

Sind (British

3,513,435

837,426

135,224

3.8

16

Districts)

25. The total population of the Bombay Presidency by the Census of 1911
(British districts only) is 19,626,477. Of this the untouchable population is
1,627,980 or 8 per cent of the total. Assuming for the present the Bombay
Legislative Council to consist of 100 elected members, the untouchables should
have 8 representatives to represent them in the Council. If we distribute one
representative to every 200,000 of the people (which is just the ratio of 100
representatives to the 20 millions of the population), then the untouchables
can by right claim 8 representatives to themselves. But the untouchables
of the Bombay Presidency may be allowed to elect 9 members in all. The
election of one additional member will be justified later on.

26. Allowing them to elect 9 members, the constituencies which are to
elect them should be as follows:

1. The various districts of the Presidency except the City of Bombay and
the Province of Sind should be grouped together on a linguistic basis as
follows:

I. Gujarathi-speaking districts II. Marathi-speaking III. Kanarese-speaking

districts districts

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

259

o

CO

05

GO

o

05

LO

LO

DO

1—1

l>

of

o'

co~

o'

LO

00

00

1—1

£

P

p

f-H

r“H

a

p

P

p

P

be

p

’r?

r p

P

Q

PQ

PQ

w

i-H

oi

CO

o

00

05

05

1— i

GO

GO

o

CO

1— 1

o

LO

oq

O

05

CO

i—l

CD

cd

1—1

CO

05

00

O

l>

i—l

O^

o'

1—1

t>

o'

CO

of

pP

co"

CO

of

LO

LO

o

i—l

CO

1—1

05

Ol

Sh

P

o>

£

cd

W

p

p

P

pp

p

P2

r2

r o

;s

'be

p

P

p

be

P

P

"P

o>

a

PP

pp

05

o>

T3

p

cd

DP

PP

02

o>

T3

p

cd

DP

cd

Sh

cd

cd

cd

P

o

o

"CQ

cd

5h

P

a

pCd

o

pp

H

PP

<P

w

w

m

PQ

£

m

t-H

oi

CO

LO

CD

GO

05

o

i—i

05

o

to

o

05

CD

05

05

1—1

o

05

CO

LO

G0~

of

i—l

cd"

Ol

1—1

CO

T3

cd

cd

p

pp

p

§

T3

PP

CD

CD

cd

pp

p

P

r-H

CD

P

p

O

P

rip

u

cd

P

P

PQ

W

PQ

05

i-H

oi

CO

LO

constituency should elect:

260

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

o

ctf

0)

o

A

if

CO

a>

>

•0 T3 QJ

a 2 3

1

2

5°
CO 0 0

| £ 8

a ^ id

2 -2 *

0

0
cc
0
a

a

0

01

o

0

0

03

a

0

0

0

45

-0

0

0

cc
0
I— I

03

cd

05

o

0

O

-0

0

0

0

45

CD .Th

a a

0 O
£

CD

Cd cd .

3 ®

P-i

0 '
a

T3

45

LO

<N

05

05

LO

t>

o

CO

CO

o

oq

O

CO

00

oo

co

<N

of

CO"

oo'

CO

co"

LO~

oo

05

o

CO

o

<N

CO

1— 1

<M

CO

1— 1

05

o

O

05

o

00

05

T— 1

05

o

oo

X

CO

05

1— 1

o

LO

CO

05

05

rH

O

T— 1

o

LO

<M

05

O

X

T— 1

CO

05

o

X

(M

CO

CO

LO

o

T— 1

co

05

CO

oo

o

CO

1— 1

o

T— 1

LO

LO

o

<N

05"

oo"

cm"

1

co"

o"

T— 1

t>

co"

csi

co"

CO

oT

co"

o"

<N

o"

LO"

00

(M

r— 1

CO

LO

LO

o

T— 1

1~ 1

CO

05

CO

(M

X

X

LO

1— 1

X

T— 1

i-H

T— 1

rH

1—1

1— 1

1—1

an

o

co

0

'o

0

0

0

CO

0

o

0

0

40

4->

0

03

03

>>

+J

o

>>

05

Cd

cd

45

cd

§

cd

42

cd

3

’0

’So

cd

0

-tn

cd

Sh

cd

bo

cd

0

H

45

0

£

-a

0

s

u

cd

cd

rO

a

o

03

0

a

r0

45

o

cd

o

cd

Ch

a

45

o

0

cd

-t-i

cd

?H

0

cd

0

cd

45

0

a

45

05

0

cd

45

05

0

cd

45

44

’w

cd

cd

Sh

cd

cd

0

c

o

a

cd

3

45

0

cd

Jjdj

3

0

a

.cd

■?

5 h

cd

45

cd

0

cd

"0

0

m

<

m

w

Ph

m

H

«

<c

z;

to

Ph

to

PQ

m

Q

W

to

1— 1

oi

CO

LO

1— 1

<n

CO

LO

CO

10

oo

05

o

1— 1

CO

0

5b

0

0

o

3

co

0

-t-p

?H

cd

0

0

cd

0

cd

Total number of representatives to be elected by the untouchables of the Presidency.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

261

These 9 elected members should form a constituency to elect one member
from among themselves to represent the untouchables of this Presidency in
the Imperial Legislative Council.

28. It may be objected that though 8 representatives are not in excess
to the untouchable population it may be in excess to the voting strength of
untouchables. That the untouchables are a poor community and that under
the same franchise they yield per thousand a smaller proportion of voters
than other communities is a fact. But if the grave position of the untouchables
is admitted instead of restricting their number of representatives, the aim
should be to increase the number of their voters, i.e., we must aim at lowering
the franchise so far as the untouchables are concerned.

29. What the franchise should be is a very important question. There
is a line of argument which urges that franchise should be given to those
only who can be expected to make an intelligent use of it. As against this
view it can be said in the words of Prof. L. T. Hobhouse that it is true
that “the success of democracy depends on the response of voters to the
opportunities given them. But conversely the opportunities must be given
in order to call forth the response. The exercise of popular Government is
itself all education ... enfranchisement itself may precisely be the stimulus
needed to awaken interest. The ballot alone effectively liberates the quiet
citizen from the tyranny of the shouter and the wire-puller. An impression of
existing inertness alone is not a sufficient reason for with-holding responsible
Government or restricting the area of sufferage.” Taking into consideration
that sufferage is an education and that there are groups with unequal
distribution of wealth and education among them and that these groups are
not sympathetically like-minded, the authors of the reports rightly argue
that the case for uniformity of franchise cannot be sustained.

30. But in the case of the untouchables there are as few reasons for
curtailing the number of their representatives as the reasons for widening
their electorate are many. If under a given franchise the untouchables do
not muster strong as electors, it is not their fault. The very untouchability
attached to their person is a bar to their moral and material progress. The
principal modes of acquiring wealth are trade, industry or service. The
untouchables can engage in none of these because of their untouchability.
From an untouchable trader no Hindu will buy. An untouchable cannot
be engaged in lucrative service. Military service had been the monopoly
of the untouchables since the days of the East India Company. They had
joined the Army in such large numbers that the Marquis Tweedledale in
his note which he submitted to the Indian Army Commission of 1859 wrote,
“It should never be forgotten that India was conquered with the help of
the low-caste men.”. But after the mutiny when the British were able to
secure soldiers from the ranks of the Marathas, the position of the low-caste
men who had been the prop of the Bombay Army became precarious, not

262

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

because the Marathas were better soldiers but because their theological
bias prevented them from serving under low-caste officers. The prejudice
was so strong that even the non-caste British had to stop recruitment from
the untouchable classes. In like manner, the untouchables are refused
service in the Police Force. In a great many of the Government offices it is
impossible for an untouchable to get a place. Even in the mills a distinction
is observed. The untouchables are not admitted in Weaving Departments of
the Cotton Mills though many of them are professional weavers. An instance
at hand may be cited from the school system of the Bombay Municipality.
This most cosmopolitan city ruled by a Corporation with a greater freedom
than any other Corporation in India has two different sets of schools ... one
for the children of touchables and the other for those of the untouchables.,
This in itself is a point worthy of note. But there is something yet more
noteworthy. Following the division of schools it has divided its teaching staff
into untouchables and touchables. As the untouchable teachers are short of
the demand, some of the untouchable schools are manned by teachers from
the touchable class. The heart-killing fun of it is that if there is a higher
grade open in untouchable school service, as there is bound to be because
of a few untouchable trained teachers, a touchable teacher can be thrust
into the grade. But if a higher grade is open in the touchable school service,
no untouchable teacher can be thrust into that grade. He must wait till
a vacancy occurs in the untouchable service ! ! ! Such is the ethics of the
Hindu social life. Under it if the untouchables are poor, the committee, it
may be hoped, will not deny them representation because of their small
electoral roll but will see its way to grant them adequate representation to
enable the untouchables to remove the evil conditions that bring about their
poverty. At present when all the avenues of acquiring wealth are closed, it
is unwise to require from the untouchables a high property qualification.
To deny them the opportunities of acquiring wealth and then to ask from
them a property qualification is to add insult to injury. Just what sort of
franchise and just what pitch are required to produce sufficient voting strength
from the untouchables ? In absence of data, I leave it to the Committee to
decide. It would be better to pitch the franchise so low as to educate into
political life as many untouchables as possible. They are too degraded to be
conscious of themselves. I only wish to emphasize that in deciding upon the
representation of the untouchables the Committee looking to their interests
at stake will not let the extent of the electorate govern the number of
representatives, but will rather let the number of representatives govern
the extension of the electorate.

31. In this connection it would not be improper to remind the Committee
of Lord Morley who is reported to have said that “the object of Government
was that the Legislative Councils should represent truly and effectively
with reasonable approach to the balance of real social forces, the wishes
and needs of the communities concerned. This could not be done by Algebra,

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

263

Arithmetic, Geometry or Logic, but by a wide outlook. He saw no harm as to
a compromise that while numbers should be the main factor in determining
the extent of representation modifying causes might influence the number of
representatives.” It is therefore proposed that the untouchables of the Bombay
Presidency should be allowed to elect 9 members through the constituencies
made up as above. These 9 members will further form a constituency to
elect one member from among themselves to represent the untouchables
in the Imperial Legislative Council leaving 8 members to represent the
untouchables in the Bombay Legislative Council.

32. Besides communal electorates there are other schemes in the field for
the representation of the untouchables. It would not be proper to close this
statement without a word of comment on those Schemes.

33. The Congress has denied communal representation except in the case of
Mohammedans and it also denies the extensive use of nomination ; the only
way then left, open to the untouchables is to fight in a general electorate.
Now this is as it should be if all were equally free to fight. To educate the
untouchables by Shahtras into pro-touchables and the touchables into anti-
untouchables and then to propose that the two should fight out at an open
poll is to betray signs of mental aberration or a mentality fed on cunning.
But it must never be forgotten that the Congress is largely composed of men
who are by design political Radicals and social Tories. Their chant is that
the social and the political are two distinct things having no bearing on each
other. To them the social and the political are two suits and can be worn
one at a time as the season demands. Such a psychology has to be laughed
at because it is too interested to be seriously taken into consideration either
for acceptance or for rejection. As it pays to believe in it, it will die a hard
death. Starting from this unnatural premise the Congress activities have
been quite natural. Those who attend the Congress do not care to attend
the National Social Conference held in the same pandal. In fact those who
attend the Congress had once started a campaign to refuse the use of the
pandal to the Conference which was once refused the pandal in the city
of Poona, the roosting place of the intelligentia of our Presidency, As the
Congress is a non-national or anti-national body, its views on communal
electorates are worthy of no serious consideration.

34. The moderates in their separate meeting have been more kindly than
just. They proposed the reservation of seats for backward communities in
plural constituencies. They have not specified the number of seats for the
untouchables. But the general sense of many enlightened moderates and
others kindly inclined is that one or two representatives of the untouchables
in the Legislative Council would suffice. It is impossible to agree with these
gentlemen though they are entitled to gratitude for this much sympathy.
One or two representatives of the untouchables are as good as having none.

264

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

A Legislative Council is not an old curiosity shop. It will be a Council
with powers to make or mar the fortunes of society. How can one or two
untouchables carry a legislative measure to improve their condition or
prevent a legislative measure worsening their state ? To be frank, the
untouchables cannot expect much good from the political power to be given
over to the high caste Hindus. Though the power may not be used against
the untouchables and one cannot be altogether sure of this, it may not be
used for their betterment. A Legislative Council may be sovereign to do
anything it likes, but what it will like to do depends upon its own character.
The English Parliament, we may be certain, though it is sovereign to do
anything, will not make the preservation of blue-eyed babies illegal. The
Sultan will not, though he can, change the religion of Mohammed just as
the Pope will not, though he can, overthrow the religion of Christ. In the
same way legislature, mainly composed of high caste men, will not pass
a law removing untouchability, sanctioning inter-marriages, removing the
ban on the use of public streets, public temples, public schools ; in short,
cleansing the person of the untouchables. This is not because they cannot,
but chiefly because they will not. A legislature is the product of a certain
social condition and its power is determined by whatever determines society.
This is too obvious to be denied. What may happen in future can be guessed
from what has happened in the past. The high caste men in the Council
do not like any social question being brought before the legislature, as may
be seen from the fact of the Resolution introduced by the Honourable Mr.
Dadabhoy in 1916 in the Imperial Legislative Council. That it was adversely
criticized by many who claimed to evince some interest in the untouchables
is too well known to need repetition. But what is not well known is that
though the resolution was lost the mover was not pardoned ; for the very
moving of such a nasty resolution was regarded as a sin. At a subsequent
election the mover had to make room for the Honourable Mr. Khaparde,
who once wrote in an article : “ Those who work for the elevation of the
untouchables are themselves degraded.”

Isn’t this sympathy of the higher castes for the untouchables, sympathy
with a vengeance ?

35. Those who tell that one or two members would suffice for the
untouchables fail to grasp the true import of political right. The chief
import of a political right though technically summed up in the power
to vote does lie either in voting upon for laws or for those who make
laws ; neither does it consist in the right to speak for or against a certain
measure nor in being able to say “yea or nay” upon roll-call; to be able
to put into a ballot-box a piece of paper with a number of names written
thereon is an act which, like those mentioned above, of itself possesses no
value which stamps it as inherently superior to many of the most ordinary
transactions of daily life. They are educative but as much as any transaction

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

265

is. The chief significance of sufferage or a political right consists in a chance
for active and direct participation in the regulation of the terms upon which
associated life shall be sustained. Now the terms upon which the associated
life between the touchables and untouchables is carried on today are the
most ignominious to the former and highly detrimental to the latter. To make
effective the capacities of a people there must be the power to fix the social
conditions of their exercise. If the conditions are too obdurate, it is in the
interest of the untouchables as well as of the touchables that the conditions
should be revised. The untouchables must be in a position to influence the
revision. Looking to the gravity of their interests, they should get their
representation as proposed in proportion to their population. One or two is
only kind but neither just nor sufficient. As Lord Morley says in an earlier
quotation, needs not numbers should govern the extent of representations.’

36. Recently there is brought into the forefront a rival scheme for the
representation of the untouchables by the Depressed Class Mission. The
scheme is known as co-option. The scheme proposes that the representatives
of the untouchables should be nominated by the co-option of the elected
members of the Council. Whether one should laugh or cry at the solicitude
of the Mission for the untouchables it is rather difficult to decide. To cry
is to believe that such a silly scheme would ever be adopted. The best way
is to laugh it out. From the scheme can be easily seen that what is some
times called benevolent interest in others may be an unwilling mask for an
attempt to dictate to them what their good shall be, instead of an endeavour
to agree with them so that they may seek and find the good of their own
choice. The Mission, it must be said, was started with the intention of
improving the condition of the Depressed Classes by emancipating them
from the social tyranny of their high caste masters. But the Mission has
fallen on such bad times that it is forced to advocate a scheme by which its
wards or their representatives will be bounden slaves of their past masters.
The masters and the mission have thus met and evolved a scheme which
will keep the Depressed classes eternally depressed without any hope of
deliverance. Such tactics do not deceive the untouchables ignorant as they
are ; much less will they deceive the Franchise Committee. From another
point of view the scheme of the Mission is unacceptable. It is aggravating to
see the Mission proposing a scheme for the representation of the untouchables
while persistently refusing to admit an untouchable in its governing council.
Interested and officious as it is, its scheme must be rejected.

37. Nomination even though by Government in itself to be preferred to the
former kind of nomination, is to be objected to from the stand-point of the
untouchables. Apart from restricting the freedom of the representatives it
fails to give political education which is the urgent need of all communities,
much more of the untouchables.

266

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

38. At this stage we must consider the argument against communal
representation. The first argument raised by the authors of the report is to
the effect “that the history of self-government among the nations who have
developed it is decisively against” communal representation. But on an earlier
page the authors say that the difference of caste and creeds must be taken
“into account as presenting a feature of Indian Society which is out of harmony
with the ideas on which elsewhere in the world representative institutions
rest” (page 97). In writing the former the later analysis of the situation
must have vanished from their minds, else we must say that the authors
could hold two opposing views at the same time. Presented in juxtaposition,
the authors must be expected to agree to communal representation on the
score of an exceptional remedy required to meet an exceptional situation.

39. Another and chief argument against communal representation is that
it will perpetuate social divisions. The fun of it is that those who uphold the
social divisions are the loudest in their expression of this adverse argument.
The committee will please note that those who are the opponents of communal
representation on this score are also the staunchest opponents of Mr. Patel’s
Inter-Caste Marriage Bill as a caste-breaking bill. The sincerity of those
who bring forward this argument is seriously to be doubted. But as even
the authors of the report have put it as a second count against communal
representation, this particular argument must be met if possible.

Does communal representation perpetuate social divisions ? If you look
upon communal representation as making electoral Colleges of social divisions,
the criticism may be said to be valid. This is true only if it is presupposed
that the divisions are no real divisions and that they don’t matter. This is
as false a pre-supposition as that of inviting India which is made when it
is said that Englishmen are unsocial. Communal Representation is a device
to ward off the evil effects of the divisions. To those who, while agreeing
to this particular benefit of communal representation, object to it on the
score that it perpetuates the divisions it can be shown that there is another
perspective from which it can be said that communal representation instead
of perpetuating the social divisions is one of the ways of dissolving them.

40. While communal electorates will be co-terminous with social divisions
their chief effect will be to bring together men from diverse castes who would
not otherwise mix together into the Legislative Council. The Legislative
Council will thus become a new cycle of participation in which the
representatives of various castes who were erstwhile isolated and therefore
anti-social will be thrown into an associated life. An active participation
in an associated life, in its turn, will not leave unaffected the dispositions
and attitudes of those who participate. A caste or a religious group to-day
is a certain attitude. So long as each caste or a group remains isolated its
attitude remains fossilized. But the moment the several castes and groups

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

267

begin to have contact and co-operation with one another the resocialization
of the fossilized attitude is bound to be the result. If the Hindus become
resocialized with regard to their attitude towards Mohammedans, Christians,
etc., and the Mohammedans, Christians, etc., become resocialized with
regard to their attitudes towards the Hindus, or the touchable Hindus with
regard to the untouchables, caste and divisions will vanish. If caste is an
attitude and it is nothing else, it must be said to be dissolved when that
particular attitude symbolizing the caste is dissolved. But the existing set
attitude representing the diverse castes and groups will be dissolved only if
the diverse groups meet together and take part in a common activity. Such
changes of disposition and attitudes will not be ephemeral but will, in their
turn influence associated life outside the Council Hall. The more opportunities
are created for such conjoint activities the better. The resocialization will
then be on a larger scale and bring about a speedier end of caste and
groups. Thus those who condemn communal representation on the score of
perpetuating the existing divisions will welcome it, on reflection, as a potent
solvent for dissolving them.

41. The importance and necessity of communal and adequate representation
of untouchables is beyond question. The depth of emotion with which the
untouchables speak on this topic must have been easily gauged when the
untouchables of the Madras Presidency told Mr. Montagu that there would
be bloodshed if Home Rule for India was not accompanied by communal
representation to the untouchables. The authors of the Report however are
actuated by a faith in the intelligentsia to effect all reforms fox the elevation
of the untouchables from permanent degradation and ostracism. They say
“they find the educated Indian organizing effort not for political ends alone
but for various forms of public and social service.”. As the authors have
connived at the demands of the untouchables on this score it is but proper
to investigate whether their faith is well grounded. On education and its
social value the words of Joseph Addison are not too stale to be recalled.
He said, “There can be no greater injury to human society than that good
Talents among men should be held Honourable to those who are endowed
with them without any regard how they are applied. The Gifts of Nature
and the Accomplishments of Art are valuable but as they are exerted in the
interest of virtue or governed by the Rules of Honour, we ought to abstract
our minds from the observation of an excellence in those we converse with,
till we have taken some notice or received some good information of the
Disposition of their Minds, otherwise they make us fond of those whom our
reason and judgment will tell us we ought to abhor.”

42. Statistics will show that the intelligentia and the Brahmin caste
are exchangeable terms. The disposition of the intelligentsia is a Brahmin
disposition. Its outlook is a Brahmin outlook. Though he has learned to
speak in the name of all, the Brahmin leader is in no sense a leader of the

268

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

people. He is a leader of his caste at best, for he feels them as he does
for no other people. It is not intended to say that there are no Brahmins
who feel for the untouchables. To be just, there are a few more moderate
and rational Brahmins who admit the frightful nature of the institution
of untouchability in the abstract and perceive the dangers to society with
which it is fraught. But the great majority of the Brahmins are those who
doggedly deny the horrors of the system in the teeth of such a mass of
evidence as never was brought to bear on any other subject and to which
the experience of every day contributes its immense amount; who, when they
speak of freedom, mean the freedom to oppress their kind and to be savage,
merciless and cruel, and whose inalienable rights can only have their growth
in the wrongs of the untouchables. Their delicate gentility will neither bear
the Englishmen as superior nor will it brook the untouchables as equal. “I
will not tolerate a man above me, and of those below none must approach
too near” sums up the true spirit of their social as well as political creed.
Those who speak against the anti-social spirit of the Brahmin leaders are
often cautioned that in their denunciation they do not pay sufficient regard
to the existence of the first class of Brahmin leaders. This is no doubt the
case. Noble but very rare instances of personal and pecuniary sacrifice may
be found among them just as may be found to be tender in the exercise of
their unnatural power. Still it is to be feared that this injustice is inseparable
from the state of things with which humanity and truth are invoked to deal.
The miserable state of the untouchables is not a bit more tolerable because
some tender hearts are bound to show sympathy, nor can the indignant tide
of honest wrath stand still because in its course it overwhelms a few who
are comparatively innocent among a host of guilty.

43. The trend of nationalism in India does not warrant us to believe that
the few who are sympathetic will grow in volume. On the other hand it is
the host of guilty that time is sure to multiply. With the growth of political
agitation, the agitation for social reform has subsided and has even vanished
The Prarthana Samaj, the Brahmo Samaj with their elevating influence have
become things of the past. The future has few things like these in store.
The growth of education if it is confined to one class, will not necessarily
lead to liberalism. It may lead to the justification and conservation of class
interest; and instead of creating the liberators of the down-trodden, it may
create champions of the past and the supporters of the status quo. Isn’t,
this the effect of education so far ? That it will take a new course in future
ceteris paribus, there is no ground to believe. Therefore, instead of leaving
the untouchables to the mercy of the higher castes, the wiser policy would
be to give power to the untouchables themselves who are anxious, not like
others, to usurp power but only to assert their natural place in society.

44. This gigantic world war, however motivated, has yielded what is
known as the principle of self-determination which is to govern international

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

269

relations of the future. It is happy to note that the pronouncement of the
20th August 1917 declared the application of the principle to India — a
principle which enunciates the rule that every people must be free to
determine the conditions under which it is to live. It would be a sign of
imperfect realization of the significance of this principle if its application were
restricted to international relations, because discord does not exist between
nations alone, but there is also discord between classes from within a nation.
Wittingly our Indian politicians in their political speeches and harangues
hold to the de jure conception of the Indian people. By the de jure conception
they conceive of the Indian people as by nature one and emphasize the
qualities such as praiseworthy community of purpose and welfare, loyalty
to public ends and mutuality of sympathy which accompany this unity. How
the de jure and de facto conceptions conflict, it is hoped, the committee will
not fail to realize. As an instance the following may be noted. The moral
evil to the Indian people of their conquest and subjugation by the British
is a theme which is very attractive to the Brahmin politicians, who never
fail to make capital out of it. The moral evils were once portrayed by John
Shore in his “Notes on Indian Affairs” written in 1832. The late Honourable
Mr. Gokhale once voiced the same feeling when speaking about the “excessive
costliness of the foreign agency”. He said :

“There is a moral evil which, if anything, is even greater. A kind of dwarfing
or stunting of the Indian race is going on under the present system. We must
live all the days of our life in an atmosphere of inferiority and the tallest
of us must bend, in order that the exigencies of the existing system may be
satisfied. The upward impulse, if I may use such an expression, which every
schoolboy at Eton and Harrow may feel, that he may one day be a Gladstone
or Napoleon or a Wellington, and which may draw forth the best efforts of
which he is capable, is denied to us. The full height to which our manhood is
capable of rising can never be reached by us under the present system. The
moral elevation which every self-governing people feel cannot be felt by us. Our
administrative and military talents must gradually disappear, owing to sheer
disuse till at last our lot as hewers of wood and drawers of water in our own
country, is stereotyped.”.

45. I beg to invite the attention of the Committee whether these sentiments
which have been voiced by a Brahmin (a noble Brahmin to be sure) to the
disgrace of the British bureaucracy cannot be more fittingly voiced by the
untouchables to the disgrace of the Brahmin oligarchy? May it be said to
the credit of the bureaucracy, that it has disproved the charge of being
wooden and shown itself susceptible to feeling by proposing changes in the
system of the Government which has dwarfed the personality of those for
whom it was devised. But can the oligarchy claim anything half as noble?
Their belief is that the Hindu social system has been perfected for all time

270

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

by their ancestors who had the superhuman vision of all eternity and
supernatural power for making infinite provision for future ages. This deep
ingrained ethnocentrism has prevented a reconstruction of Hindu Society
and stood in the way of a revision of vested rights for the common good.
A farce of a conference for the removal of untouchability was enacted in
March 1918 in Bombay. Doctor Kurtakoti, the Shankaracharya of Karvir
fame, though promised to attend, left for Northern India just a day or two
before the conference met, on some urgent business. Mr. Tilak is credited
with a short speech at the conference which has for the good luck of
Mr. Tilak remained unreported. But this was only lip sympathy shown to
hoodwink the untouchables for when the draft of the proclamation removing
untouchabilily was presented to Mr. Tilak, it is known on creditable evidence
that he refused to honour it with his signature.

46. Here is disclosed a patent disharmony within a nation and therefore
a proper field for the application of the principle of self-determination. If
the advanced classes are clamouring for its application to India and if the
powers that be have sanctioned it, however partially, to ward off the future
stunting and dwarfing of the Indian people, may not the untouchables with
justice claim its benefit in their own interest ? Admitting the necessity of
self-determination for the untouchables communal representation cannot be
withheld from them, for communal representation and self-determination are
but two different phrases which express the same notion.

Supplementary Written Statement of Mr. Bhimrao R. Ambedkar

1. The object of this supplement is primarily, to show how the scheme
of representation which I have recommended for the untouchables of the
Bombay Presidency in my previous statement can be fitted into the scheme
of representation proposed by the Government of Bombay for the composition
of the Legislative Council.

2. First I wish to propose certain changes in number of seats assigned
by the Government to the various main constituencies. The several changes
proposed are indicated in the following table :

Distribution of Seats among

(1) Zamindars and Jahagirdas of Sind

(2) Sardars of Gujarat

(3) Sardars of Deccan

(4) Bombay University

(5) Europeans

(6) Sindh Hindus

(7) Mohammedans

(8) Six cities

(9) Twenty-six Districts of the Presidency

By Govt. By me

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

4 4

3 4

18 10

18 .17

. . . 52 60

Total ... 100 100

3. As regards the method of election proposed for I, II, III, IV & V of the
above constituencies, I agree with the Government.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

271

4. The Government has reserved 3 seats for the Sindh Hindus. I have
proposed 4 of them, one of which should be earmarked for the untouchables
of Sind to be filled by a communal electorate.

5. For the 6 cities I have reserved 17 seats. Of this I propose that Bombay
should be given 10. Of the 10 seats the untouchables of the city should be
given 1 seat, also to be filled by a communal electorate.

6. So far it is shown how the Sind untouchables and their fellows in Bombay
can be provided for. In addition to these two seats the untouchables of the
Presidency proper, excluding the city of Bombay, should be given 7 seats.
The constituencies among which these 7 seats are to be distributed, I have
indicated on page 7 of my previous statement. It is in this fashion that the
9 seats for the untouchables of the Presidency should be carved out. The
Government of Bombay finds difficulty in defining the Depressed Classes.

The difficulty is not a real difficulty, for, for all practical purposes the
untouchables and the Depressed classes are the same. Knowing full well the
degradation of the untouchables, the callousness of the Bombay Government
is appalling. By refusing to make provision for the representation of the
Depressed classes the Government have deliberately thrown the gravest
of interests into the greatest of perils — a calamity which I am sure the
Committee will avert.

7. Having taken out 7 seats from the 60, I propose to distribute the
remaining 53 among the touchable population of the 26 districts as follows :

I allow, though cannot quite agree with the Government, that the 7
districts of Sind should elect 14 members on the basis of 2 per district.
But in the case of the 19 districts which are outside Sind I feel that a
two-member constituency will not suffice, principally because the touchable
Hindu population is not homogeneous. In order to satisfy the aspirations of
the subdivisions of the touchable Hindus we must at least in some cases
give up the principle of a two-member constituency. [91 (2)] To distribute
the 39 seats among the 19 districts in question I should first group the
districts on linguistic basis as follows :

Districts

I Gujarathi

(1) Ahmedabad

(2) Broach

(3) Kaira

(4) Panch Mahals

(5) Surat

II Marathi

(1) Thana

(2) Kolaba

(3) Ratnagiri

(4) Ahmednagar

Touchable
Hindu Population

Total

614, 286
170, 545
556, 667
259, 929
535, 236
21, 36. 663

736, 915
509, 158
1, 003, 240
738, 747

272

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Districts

Touchable
Hindu Population

(5) Khandesh East ... ... ... 789, 740

(6) Khandesh West ... ... ... 437, 391

(7) Nasik ... ... ... 745, 965

(8) Satara ... ... ... 883, 488

(9) Poona ... ... ... 858, 607

(10) Sholapur ... ... ... 574,152

Total ... 72, 77, 403

III Kanakese

(1) Belgaum ... ... ... 734, 598

(2) Bijapur ... ... ... 677, 041

(3) Dharwar ... ... ... 820, 345

(4) Kanara ... ... ... 372, 857

Total ... 26, 04, 841

Grand total of touchable Hindus in the 19 Districts concerned 12,018,907.

Of the 39 seats to be distributed I should give 8 seats to the Gujarati.
23 to the Marathi and 8 to the Kanarese districts.

The actual constituencies may be as under :

Language

Districts

1

Population in
each constituency

2

Number
of the

Constituency

3

Number of
Representatives
to be elected by
the Constituency
4

(1) Ahmednagar

I GUJARATHI

. . 614, 286

I

2

(2) Broach 1

. . 727, 212

II

3

(3) Kaira J

(4) Panch Mahais 1

. . 795, 165

III

3

(5) Surat J

(1) Thana \

II Marathi

. . 1, 246, 073

IV

4

(2) Kolaba J

(3) Ratnagiri

. . 1, 003, 240

V

2

(4) Ahmednagar 1

. . 1, 484, 712

VI

3

(5) Nasik J

(6) Khandesh East 1

. . 1, 227, 131

VII

3

(7) Khandesh West j

(8) Satara

. . 883, 488

VIII

*

(9) Poona

. . 858, 607

IX

3

(10) Sholapur

. . 574, 152

X

3

*No Figure is shown against the Satara district in the original.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE 273

1

2

3

4

(1) Belgaum

(2) Bijapur I

III Kanakese
. . 1,411,639

IX

4

(3) Dharwar 1

(4) Kanara J . . 1,193,202 XII 4

Total number of representatives for the 19 districts 39.

The Principal advantage of such a grouping is that the demand of the
Marathas and the Lingayats can be satisfied without resorting to communal
representation. There is no sacredness about a district that can plead against
transcending its boundaries for political purposes when such a transcending
enables us to minimise the field for communal representation.

8. I have differed from the Government of Bombay on the number of
representatives to be given to the Mohamedans. Of the two bases, population
and the Congress Scheme, the Government of Bombay have preferred the
latter without even making a show of reasoning. In doing so they have
contravened the most considered opinion of the authors of the Reforms
Scheme who say that there is no basis other than that of negotiation for
the proportion of Mohammedan representation fixed in the Congress League
Scheme. It must be urged that looking to its composition the Congress is a
body whose vicarious promises can never be binding on the vast population
who have played no part in its deliberations.

9. The Mohammedans of this presidency form 20 per cent of the total
population. On the basis of population therefore, they are entitled only to
20 seats out of the 100 elective seats. But tempering population by need I
think 24 seats ought to satisfy them. Any excess over this cannot be tolerated
as it will be at the cost of the other communities. Of these 24, the 7 districts
of Sind on the basis of 2 per district will return 14 Mohammedans. The
other 10 seats may be distributed as follows :

Population

No. of

Representatives

(1) Bombay City

. . . 179, 246

2

(2) Northern Division

. . . 342, 696

2

(3) Central Division

. . . 367, 509

3

(4) Southern Division

. . . 457, 997

3

Total ... 10

I should prefer linguistic grouping to divisional grouping even in the case
of the Mohammedans. I fail to see how a Mohammedan from Thana can
have any affiliation with a Mohammedan of Surat though both the districts
come under the same division. To group together for political purposes people
who are ethnically different is absurd.

274

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mr. Bhimrao R. Ambedkar called and examined

Sir Frank Sly: He was a professor in the Sydenham College of Commerce.
He graduated from the Elphinstone College, Bombay and was an M.A. of
the Columbia University, New York. He was a Mahar by caste and his
statement dealt largely with the depressed classes.

So far as the Hindu community was concerned, he divided them into two
classes, touchables and untouchables; a distinction which was unmistakable
in practice and more convenient than a division by castes. He recognised
also a distinction between Brahmins and non-Brahmins, but this was of
less importance. The distinction between Brahmin and non-Brahmin would
not make much difference as regards the attitude of voter to a candidate,
but the distinction between touchable and untouchable would make a very
great difference.

He did not think there was any necessity for communal electorates for
non-Brahmins as, if three-member constituencies were granted according to
his supplementary statement, non-Brahmins would get some seats. From the
figures in para 16 of his written statement he intended to show that on a
uniform property qualification, a community which might be in a minority
with regard to population might be in a majority in respect of voting strength ;
some of the communities that he had mentioned might be minorities in the
whole province, but majorities in particular districts. They should try to
reduce the fever for communal representation as much as possible, and he
therefore recommended three-member constituencies.

He wanted a variation of the franchise for the untouchables ; but, if
constituencies with more than two members were adopted, the lowering of
the franchise became a matter of less importance. In the case of a small
constituency, for instance, the Marathas, it might be desirable to group them.

If a particular community had a majority of votes in a constituency, there
was no need for that community to have separate communal representation.
If the untouchables had a majority of votes in a particular constituency,
he would not ask for communal representation. It was because they were
in a minority and would always remain so on a uniform franchise that he
asked for separate representation. His justification for asking for a low
franchise was that as a result of being untouchable, the untouchables had
no property ; they could not trade because they could not find customers. He
remembered a case in which a Mahar woman was taken to the police court
for selling water-melons. He was not aware of the conditions outside the
Bombay Presidency. In the mills in the Bombay Presidency the untouchables
were not yet allowed to work in the weaving department ; in one case an
untouchable did work in the weaving department of a mill saying that he
was a Mohammedan, and when found out, he was severely beaten.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

275

The definition of an “untouchable” as a person who would cause
pollution by his touch, was a satisfactory one for electoral purposes. It
was not the case that some castes were considered to be untouchable in
some districts and touchable in others.

According to his classification the untouchables amounted to about
8 per cent of the population, but he had proposed 9 seats which would
make about 9 per cent. These seats should be filled by separate communal
election.

He was aware that the untouchable in his present state of development
was in no way qualified to give a responsible vote. In the whole Bombay
Presidency there were one B.A. and 6 or 7 matriculates among the
depressed classes. The proportion of those who were literate in English
was very small, but not much smaller than in the case of the backward
classes. The depressed classes, especially the Mahars and the Chamars,
were fit to exercise the vote. He would also give them the votes by way of
education. He could find at least 25 or more men amongst them who had
passed the 6th or the 7th Standards of a High School, and, although the
number was not large, the 9 seats which he suggested for the depressed
classes could be filled from amongst them. Such a candidate in practical
matters would be as good as a graduate although, the latter might be
able to express himself better.

He was opposed to any system under which the representatives of
the depressed classes were drawn from other classes. Representation by
missionaries, for instance, would not be representation in any real sense
of the word.

He suggested large constituencies for the depressed classes; if such
large constituencies had been accepted for the Mohammedans he did not
see why they were not practicable in the case of the depressed classes.

In order to obtain the required number of seats for the depressed classes
he would reduce the number of seats suggested by Government for the
Mohammedans, from 18 to 10. This reduction was justifiable, as on the
population basis the Mohammedans were only entitled to 20 per cent of
the seats. He did not consider the Congress League Pact as binding on all.

Mr. Hailey : Untouchables were persons to whom certain rights of
citizenship had been denied. For instance, it was the right of every
citizen to walk down the street, and if a man were prevented from doing
so, even temporarily, it was an infringement of his right. Whether a
man was prevented from exercising his rights by law or social custom,
made very little difference to him. Government had recognised custom
and persons belonging to the untouchable classes were not employed in
Government service.

276

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

He suggested the lowering of the franchise qualification in the case of the
depressed classes, as it should be the object of the Government to improve
the lot of the community.

From an examination of the Census Report he would say that the problem
of touchable and non-touchable existed in Sind, as although the greater
proportion of the population there were Mohammedans, there were also
Hindus. If special provision was going to be made for the Hindus in Sind,
he did not see why special provision should not be made for the depressed
classes also.

Mr. Banerjee: The depressed classes would be able to find 9 men who were
able to speak English and who could represent their cause in the Council.
The 6th standard was the class below the matriculation, and a man who had
passed the 6th standard would be able to follow the debates in the Council.
They had about 25 persons who had passed that standard.

For political purposes there would be no difficulty in defining the depressed
classes, who were the same as the untouchables. No one who was not a
member of a depressed class would think of trying to make himself out to be
such, though such a thing might occur in the case of the backward classes.

He would accept 8 representatives as the minimum for the depressed
classes, and they should be elected. Nominated representative would not be
in a position adequately to represent their interests.

Mr. Crump: He had no experience of the problem and conditions of the
untouchable classes in Sind, and could not say anything with regard to the
statement that there was only one such class, viz., the Bhangis, there- His
information was that the total Hindu population in Sind was 837,426 and
the total of the untouchable classes was 135,224.

Mr. Natarajan: His view was that British rule in India was meant to
provide equal opportunities for all, and that in transferring a large share
of the power to popular assemblies, arrangements should be made whereby
the hardships and disabilities entailed by the social system should not be
reproduced and perpetuated in political institutions. As regards the exact
position at present, he admitted that, for instance, at the Parel school which
was meant for the depressed classes, there were many higher-caste pupils,
who came there because it was a good school. Similarly as a professor he,
being a member of a depressed class, had pupils of all classes and found no
difficulty in dealing with his higher caste pupils. If the untouchable classes
were recognized by Government by the grant of seats, their status would be
raised and their powers would be stimulated. He was not very particular
about the number of their seats; all he wanted was something adequate.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

277

The following persons were called and examined at Bombay
between 24 January 1919 and 31 January 1919:

(1) L. C. Cramp, Esq., I.C.S. representing the Government of Bombay
(24 January 1919).

(2) The Hon’ble Major C. Fernandez, M. D. I. M. S. (Temporary)
(24 January 1919).

(3) The Rev. Cannon D. L. Joshi, representing the Bombay Indian
Christian (Protestant) Association (24 January 1919).

(4) Lieut. Colonel H.A.J. Gidney, I.M.S. (Retired), representing the
Anglo-Indian Empire League (Bombay Branch) (25 January 1919).

(5) Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, BART (25 January 1919).

(6) W. A. Haig Brown, Esq., representing the Bombay Branch of the
European Association (25 January 1919).

(7) Mr. D. D. Sathaye, representing the Bombay National Union
(25 January 1919).

(8) The Hon’ble Mr. M. A. Jinnah (25 January 1919).

(9) Mr. C. N. Wadia, representing the Bombay Millowners Association
(27 January 1919).

(10) Mr. V. R. Shinde (27 January 1919).

(11) Mr. K. R. Koregawkar, representing the Maratha Aikyecchu Sab ha
(27 January 1919).

(12) The Hon’ble Mr. M.A. Jinnah (27 January 1919).

(13) Mirza Ali Muhamad Khan (27 January 1919).

(14) Bhimrao R. Ambedkar Esq. (27 January 1919).

(15) The Hon’ble Mr. V. J. Patel (28) January 1919).

(16) The Hon’ble Sahib Hiralal Desaibhai Desai (28 January 1919).

(17) The Hon’ble Mr. Chunilal V. Mehta (28 January 1919).

(18) A. B. Latthe, Esq. (28 January 1919).

(19) The Hon’ble Mr. R. P. Paranjpye (28 January 1919).

(20) Mr. V. R. Kothari, representing the Deccan Ryots’ Association
(28 January 1919).

(21) Messrs. Umar Sobhani and S. G. Banker, representing the Bombay
Home Rule League (29 January 1919).

(22) H. N. Apte Esq., representing the Deccan Sabha, Poona (23 January
1919).

(23) N. C. Kelkar Esq. (29 January 1919).

(24) The Hon’ble Mr. D. V. Belvi (29 January 1919).

(25) Rao Bahadur Thakorram Kapilram (29 January 1919).

(26) N. M- Joshi Esq., Member of the Servants of India Society
(30 January 1919).

(27) The Hon’ble Rao Bahadur Venkatesh Srinivas Naik (30 January
1919).

(28) Pandit R. Chikodi (30 January 1919).

278

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(29) The Hon’ble Mr. S. J. Gillum and Sir Thomas Birkett, Kt., representing
the Bombay Chamber of Commerce (30 January 1919).

(30) Mr. Ambalal Sarabhai with Mr. Kasturbhai Lalbhai, Dalpatbhai
representing the Ahmadabad Miliowners’ Association (30 January
1919).

(31) Devidas Madhavji Thakersey, Esq., representing the Bombay Native
Piece-goods Merchants Association (30 January 1919).

(32) The Hon’ble Mr. Ghulam Hussain Hidayatulla (31 January 1919).

(33) Mr. B. V. Jadhav (31 January 1919).

(34) The Hon’ble Sir Pazulbhoy Currimbhoy, Kt., C.I.E. (31 January 1919).

(35) H. P. Mody Esq. (31 January 1919).

(36) Sardar V. N. Mutalik representing the Inamdars’ Central Association,
Satara (31 January 1919).

8

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES: No. 3.

FEDERATION

VERSUS

FREEDOM

(Kale Memorial Lecture)

Address delivered on 29th January 1939
at

the Annual Function
of

the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics
held in

the Gokhale Hall, Poona

“The distance you have gone is less important than
the direction in which you are going today.”

— Tolstoy

First Published : 1939
Reprinted from the first edition

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

PREFACE

A word or two as regards the origin of this tract and the motive
which has led me to publish it at this time will, I think, not be out
of place.

Many in this country must be aware that there exists in Poona
an institution which is called the Gokhale Institute of Politics and
Economics, working under the direction of Dr. D. R. Gadgil. The
Institute holds a function annually to celebrate what is called the
Founder’s Day and invites some one to deliver an address on some
subject connected with politics or economics. This year, I was asked
by Dr. Gadgil to deliver an address. I accepted the invitation and
chose the Federal Scheme as the subject of my address. The address
covered both (1) the structure of the Federation and (2) a critique of
that structure. The address was delivered on 29th January 1939 at
the Gokhale Hall in Poona. The address as prepared had become too
lengthy for the time allotted to me and although I kept the audience
for two hours when usually the time allotted for such address is one
hour I had to omit from the address the whole of the part relating
to the Federal structure and some portion from the part relating to
the criticism of the structure. This tract, however, contains the whole
of the original address prepared by me for the occasion.

So much for the origin of this tract. Now as to the reasons for
publishing it. All addresses delivered at the Gokhale Institute
are published. It is in the course of things that this also should
be published. But there are other reasons besides this, which
have prevailed with me to publish it. So far as the Federation

282

PREFACE

is concerned, the generality of the Indian public seems to be living in
a fog. Beyond the fact that there is to be a Federation and that the
Federation is a bad thing the general public has no clear conception
of what is the nature of this Federation and is, therefore, unable to
form an intelligent opinion about it. It is necessary that the general
public should have in its hand a leaflet containing an outline of the
Federal structure and a criticism of that structure in small compass
sufficient to convey a workable understanding of the Scheme. I feel
this Tract will supply this need.

I also think that the publication of this tract will be regarded as
timely. Federation is a very live issue and it is also a very urgent
one. Soon the people of British India will be called upon to decide
whether they should accept the Federal Scheme or they should not.
The premier political organization in this Country, namely, the
Congress seems to be willing to accept this Federation as it has
accepted Provincial Autonomy. The negotiations that are going on
with the Muslim League and the manoeuvres that are being carried
on with the Indian States give me at any rate the impression that
the Congress is prepared to accept the Federation and that these
negotiations and manoeuvres are designed to bring about a working
arrangement with other parties so that with their help the Congress
may be in the saddle at the Centre as it has been in the Provinces.
Mr. Subhas Chandra Bose has even gone to the length of suggesting
that the right wing of the Congress has committed itself to this
Federation so far that it has already selected its cabinet. It matters
not whether all this is true or not. I hope all this is untrue. Be that
as it may, the matter is both grave and urgent, and I think all those
who have anything to say on the subject should speak it out. Indeed
I feel that silence at such a time will be criminal. That is why I have
hastened to publish my address. I believe that I have views on the
subject of Federation which even if they do not convince others will
at least provoke them to think

B. R. AMBEDKAR

1-3-39
Raj gr aha

Dadar, Bombay 14

I

INTRODUCTORY

Dr. Gadgil and students of the Gokhale Institute,

I feel greatly honoured by your invitation to address you this evening
You have met today to celebrate a day which is set out as your Founder’s
Day. I had the privilege of personally knowing the late Rao Bahadur
R. R. Kale the founder of your Institute. He was my colleague in the old
Bombay Legislative Council. I know how much care and study he used to
bestow upon every subject which he handled. I am sure he deserves the
gratitude of all those who care for knowledge and study for helping to
‘establish this Institute, whose main function as I understand is to dig for
knowledge and make it ready for those who care to use it. For, first knowledge
is power as nothing else is, and secondly, not all those who wish and care
for knowledge have the leisure and the patience to dig for it. As one who
believes in the necessity of knowledge and appreciates the difficulties in its
acquisition I am glad to be associated in this way with him and with the
Institute he has founded.

The theme I have chosen for the subject matter of my address is the
Federal Scheme embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935. The title
of the subject might give you the impression that I am going to explain
the Federal Constitution. That would be an impossible task in itself. The
Federal Scheme is a vast thing. Its provisions are contained, first in 321
sections of the Government of India Act, 1935, secondly in the 9 Schedules
which are part of the Act, thirdly in 31 Orders-in- Council issued under
the Act and fourthly the hundreds of Instruments of Accession to be
passed by the Indian States. Very few can claim mastery over so vast a
subject and if any did he would take years to expound it in all its details.

284

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I have set to myself a very limited task. It is to examine the scheme
in the light of certain accepted tests and to place before you the results
of this examination so that you may be in a position to form your own
judgment regarding the merits of the scheme. It is true that I cannot
altogether avoid setting out the outlines of the scheme. In fact, I am
going to give an outline of the scheme. I realize that it is an essential
preliminary without which my criticism might remain high up in the air.
But the outline I am going to draw for my purpose will be the briefest
and just enough to enable you to follow what I shall be saying regarding
the merits of the scheme.

II

BIRTH AND GROWTH OF INDIAN FEDERATION

There are five countries which are known in modern times to
have adopted the federal form of Government. They are : (1) U.S.A.,

(2) Switzerland, (3) Imperial Germany, (4) Canada and (5) Australia.
To these five it is now proposed to add the sixth which is the All-India
Federation.

What are the constituent units of this Federation ? For an answer to
this question refer to section 5. It says:

“5. (1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty, if an address in that behalf has
Proclamation been presented to him by each House of Parliament and if
of Federation the condition hereinafter mentioned is satisfied, to declare
of India by Proclamation that as from the day therein appointed

there shall be united in a Federation under the Crown, by
the name of the Federation of India, —

(a) The Provinces hereinafter called Governors’ Provinces ; and

( b ) the Indian States which have acceded or may thereafter accede to
the Federation ; and in the Federation so established there shall
be included the Provinces hereinafter called Chief Commissioners’
Provinces.

(2) The condition referred to is that, States —

(a) the Rulers whereof will, in accordance with the provision contained
in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act be entitled to choose
not less than fifty-two members of the Council of State ; and

(b) the aggregate population whereof, as ascertained in accordance
with the said provisions, amounts to at least one-half of the
total population of States, as so ascertained, have acceded to the
Federation.”

Leaving aside the conditions prescribed by this Section for the
inauguration of the Federation it is clear that the Units of the Federation
are (1) The Governors’ Provinces, (2) Chief Commissioners’ Provinces and

(3) The Indian States.

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

285

What is the size of this Indian Federation ?

Many people when they speak of the Indian Federation do not seem to
realize what an enormous entity it is going to be —

Population

Area

Units

U.S.A.

122,775,040

2,973,773

48 States plus
1 Federal Dist.

Germany

67,000,000

208,780

25

Switzerland

466,400

15,976

22

Canada

10,376,786

3,729,665

9

Australia

6,629,839

2,974,581

6

India

352,837,778

1,808,679

162

The Indian Federation in point of area is 3/5th of U.S.A. and of Australia
and half of Canada. It is 9 times of Germany and 120 times of Switzerland.
In point of population it is 3 times of U.S.A., 5 times of Germany, 35 times
of Canada, 58 times of Australia and 88 times of Switzerland. Measured
by the Units which compose it, it is 3 times larger than U.S.A., 6V2 times
larger than Germany, 8 times larger than Switzerland, 18 times larger than
Canada and 27 times larger than Australia. Thus the Indian Federation is
not merely a big federation. It is really a monster among federations.

What is the source from which the Federation derives its Governmental
Powers and Authority ?

Section 7 says that the executive authority of the Federation shall be
exercised on behalf of Flis Majesty by the Governor-General. That means that
the Authority of the Federation is derived from the Crown. In this respect
the Indian Federation differs from the Federation in the U.S.A. In the U.S.A.,
the powers of the Federation are derived from the people. The people of the
United States are the fountain from which the authority is derived. While
it differs from the Federation in the U.S.A. the Indian Federation resembles
the Federations in Australia and Canada. In Australia and Canada the
source of the Authority for the Federal Government is also the Crown and
Section 7 of the Government of India Act is analogous to section 61 of the
Australian Act and section 9 of the Canadian Act. That the Indian Federation
should differ in this respect from the American Federation and agree with
the Canadian and Australian Federation is perfectly understandable. The
United States is a republic while Canada and India are dominions of the
Crown. In the former the source of all authority are the people. In the latter
the source of all authority is the Crown.

From where does the Crown derive its authority ?

Such a question is unnecessary in the case of Canada and Australia,
because the Crown is the ultimate source of all authority and

286

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

there is nothing beyond or behind, to which his authority is referable.
Can this be said of the Indian Federation? Is the Crown the ultimate
source of authority exercised by the Federation ? Is there nothing beyond
or behind the Crown to which this authority needs to be referred ? The
answer to this question is that only for a part of the authority of the
Federation the Crown is the ultimate source and that for remaining part
the Crown is not the ultimate source.

That this is the true state of affairs is clear from the terms of the
Instrument of Accession. I quote the following from the draft Instruments : —

“Whereas proposals for the establishment of a Federation of India
comprising such Indian States as may accede thereto and the Provinces
of British India constituted as Autonomous Provinces have been discussed
between representatives of His Majesty’s Government of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom, of British India and of the Rulers of the Indian States;

And Whereas those proposals contemplated that the Federation of India
should be constituted by an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
and by the accession of Indian States ;

And Whereas provision for the constitution of a Federation of India has
now been made in the Government of India Act, 1935 ;

And Whereas that Act provided that the Federation shall not be established
until such date as His Majesty may, by proclamation, declare, and such
declaration cannot be made until the requisite number of Indian States have
acceded to the Federation ;

And Whereas the said Act cannot apply to any of my territories save
by virtue of my consent and concurrence signified by my accession to the
Federation;

Now, therefore, I (insert full name and title), Ruler of (insert name of
State), in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State for
the purpose of co-operating in the furtherance of the interests and welfare
of India by uniting in a Federation under the Crown by the name of the
Federation of India with Provinces called Governors’ Provinces and with
the Provinces called Chief Commissioners’ Provinces and with the Rulers of
other Indian States do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession, and
hereby declare that subject to His Majesty’s acceptance of this Instrument,

I accede to the Federation of India as established under the Government
of India Act, 1935.”

This is a very important feature of the Indian Federation. What has brought
about this difference between the Indian Federation and the Canadian and
Australian Federation ? For what part is the Crown the ultimate source
and for what part is it not? To understand these questions you must take

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

287

note of two things. First, the Indian Federation comprises two distinct areas :
British India and Indian States. This will be clear if you refer to section 5.
Second, the relationship of these two areas with the Crown is not the same.
The area known as British India is vested in the Crown while the area
comprised in an Indian State is not vested in the Crown but is vested in
the Ruler. This is clear if you refer to sections 2 and 311. The territory of
British India being vested in the Crown the sovereignty over it belongs to
the Crown and the territory of an Indian State being vested in the Ruler of
the State the sovereignty over the State belongs to the Ruler of the State.

You will now understand why I said that in the Indian Federation
the Crown is the ultimate source for a part of its authority and for the
remaining part the Crown is the ultimate source of authority of the Indian
Federation in so far as British India is part of the Federation. The Indian
Ruler is the ultimate source of authority in so far as his State is part of this
Federation. When therefore section 7 says that the Executive Authority of
the Federation shall be exercised by the Governor-General on behalf of the
Crown it must be understood that Crown’s authority which is delegated by
him to the Governor- General in the working out of the Indian Federation
is partly its own and partly derived from the Rulers of the Indian States.

What is the process by which the Crown acquires the authority which
belongs to the Ruler of an Indian State ? The process is known under the
Indian Act as Accession. This Accession is effected by what is called an
Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler of a State. The provisions
relating to the Instrument of Accession are contained in section 6(1). That
section reads as follows :-

“6. A State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty
has signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler
for himself, his heirs and successors —

(a) declares that he accedes to the Federation as established under this
Act, with the intent that His Majesty the King, the Governor-General
of India, the Federal Legislature, the Federal Court and any other
Federal Authority established for the purposes of the Federation
shall by virtue of his Instrument of Accession, but subject always
to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Federation,
exercise in relation to his State such functions as may be vested in
him by or under this Act; and

( b ) assumes the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given within
his State to the provisions of this Act so far as they are applicable
therein by virtue of his Instrument of Accession.”

It is this Instrument of Accession which confers authority upon the Crown
in the first instance so far as an Indian State is part of the Federation and

288

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

it is because of this that the Crown’s Authority in and over this Federation
is derivative in part.

This is the law as to the birth of the Federation. What is the law as
to the growth of this Federation? In other words what is the law as to
change? The law as to change is contained in section 6(7)(a), Schedule II
and section 6(5).

Section 6(l)(a) makes it clear that the accession by a Prince, effected
through his Instrument of Accession, is “to the Federation as established
by this Act.” Schedule II deals with future amendment of the Constitution.
It declares what are the provisions in the Government of India Act an
amendment of which will be deemed to affect the Instrument of Accession
and what are the provisions an amendment of which will not affect the
Instrument of Accession by the States.

Section 6(5) does two things. In the first place it provides that the
Instrument of Accession shall be deemed to confer upon Parliament the
right to amend these provisions which are declared by Schedule II as open
to amendment without affecting the Instrument of Accession. In the second
place it provides that although Parliament may amend a provision of the Act
which is declared by Schedule II as open to amendment without affecting
the Instrument of Accession such an amendment shall not bind the States
unless it is accepted as binding by the State by a supplementary Instrument
of Accession.

To sum up, the units of this Federation do not form one single whole
with a common spring of action. The units are separate. They are just held
together. For some purposes the position of the units cannot be altered at
all. For some purposes alteration is permissible but such alteration cannot
bind all the units alike. Some will be bound by it but some will not be
unless they consent to be bound. In other words in this Federation there is
no provision for growth. It is fixed. It cannot move. A change by evolution is
not possible and where it is possible it is not binding unless it is accepted.

Ill

THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERATION
(a) The Federal Legislature

The Federal Legislature is a bicameral legislature. There is a Lower
House which is spoken of as the Legislative Assembly and there is an Upper
House which is called the Council of State. The composition of the two
Chambers is a noteworthy feature. They are very small Chambers compared
with other legislatures having regard to the population and the area as
the total membership of the Federal Assembly is 375 and of the Council of
State 260. These seats are divided in a certain proportion between British
India and the Indian States. Of the 375 seats in the Federal Assembly 250

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

289

are allotted to British India and 125 to the Indian States. In the Council of
State, out of the 260 seats, 156 are allotted to British India and 104 to the
Indian States. It may be noticed that distribution between British India and
the Indian States is not based upon an equalitarian principle. It is possible
to take the population as the basis of representation. It is also possible to
take the revenue as the basis of representation. But neither of these has
been taken as the basis of distribution of seats. Whether you take population
as the basis or whether you take revenue as the basis, you will find that
British India has been under-represented, while the Indian States have been
over-represented in the two Chambers. The method of filling the seats is also
noteworthy. The representatives of the British India in both the Chambers
will be elected. The representatives of the Indian States, on the other hand,
are to be appointed i.e., nominated, by the Rulers of the States. It is open
to a Ruler to provide that the representatives of his State, though appointed
by him, may be chosen by his subjects but this is a matter which is left to
his discretion. He may appoint a person who is chosen by his people or he
may, if he pleases, do both, choose and appoint. In the final result a State’s
representative is to be appointed by the Ruler as distinguished from being
elected by the people. In the case of British India, the representatives are
to be elected, but here again there is a peculiarity which may be noticed.
In the case of all bi-cameral Legislatures the Lower House being a popular
house is always elected directly by the people, while the Upper House being
a revising Chamber is elected by indirect election. In the case of the Indian
Federation this process is reversed. The Upper Chamber will be elected by
direct election by the people and it is the Lower Chamber which is going to
be elected indirectly by the Provincial Legislatures. The life of the Federal
Assembly is fixed for a term of five years, although it may be dissolved
sooner. The Council of State on the other hand is a permanent body not
liable to dissolution. It is a body which lives by renewal of a third part of
its membership every three years.

Now the authority of the two Chambers to pass laws and to sanction
expenditure may be noted. With regard to the authority to pass laws some
constitutions make a distinction between money bills and other bills and
provide that with regard to money bills the Upper Chamber shall not have
the power to initiate such a bill, and also that the Upper Chamber shall
not have the authority to reject it. It is given the power only to suspend
the passing of the bill for a stated period. The Indian constitution makes no
such distinction at all. The money bills and other bills are treated on the
same footing and require the assent of both the Chambers before they can
become law. The only distinction is that while according to section 30(2) a
bill which is not a money bill may originate in either Chamber, a money
bill, according to section 37, shall not originate in the Upper Chamber. But
according to section 3(2) a money bill needs the assent of the Upper Chamber
as much as any other bill.

290

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

With regard to the authority to sanction expenditure : here again there
is a departure made in the accepted principles of distributing authority
between the two Chambers when a Legislature is bi-cameral.

According to section 31(1) the Annual Financial Statement of estimated
receipts and expenditure shall be laid before both Chambers of the Federal
Legislature and shall, of course, be open to discussion in both the Chambers.
Not only are they open to discussion in both the Chambers, they are also
subject to the vote of both the Chambers. Section 34 ( 2 ) requires that the
expenditure shall be submitted in the form of demands for grants to the
Federal Assembly and thereafter to the Council of State and either Chamber
shall have the power to assent to or refuse any demand, or to assent to any
demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified therein.

It will thus be seen that the two Chambers are co-equal in authority,
both in the matter of their authority to pass laws and in the matter of
sanctioning expenditure. A conflict between the two Chambers cannot end
by one Chamber yielding to the other if that Chamber does not wish so to
yield. The procedure adopted for the resolving of differences between the
two Chambers is the method of joint sessions. Section 31(1) deals with
the procedure with regard to joint sessions where the conflict relates to a
bill. Section 34(5) relates to the procedure where the conflict relates to the
differences with regard to sanctioning of expenditure.

(b) The Federal Executive

The constitution of the Federal Executive is described in section 7(1).
According to this section the executive Authority of the Federation is handed
over to the Governor-General. It is he who is the Executive Authority for the
Federation. The first thing to note about this Federal Executive is that it is
a unitary executive and not a corporate body. In India ever since the British
took up the civil and military government of the country, the executive has
never been unitary in composition. The executive was a composite executive. In
the Provinces it was known as the Governor-in-Council. At the Centre it was
known as the Governor-General-in-Council. The civil and military government
of the Provinces as well as of India was not vested either in the Governor or
in the Governor-General. The body in which it was vested was the Governor
with his Councillors. The Councillors were appointed by the King and did not
derive their authority from the Governor-General. They derived their authority
from the Crown and possessed co-equal authority with the Governor and the
Governor-General and, barring questions where the peace and tranquillity of
the territory was concerned, the Governor and the Governor-General were
bound by the decision of the majority. The constitution, therefore, makes a
departure from the established system. I am not saying that this departure is
unsound in principle or it is not justified by precedent or by the circumstances

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

291

arising out of the necessities of a federal constitution. All I want you to note
is that this is a very significant change.

The next thing to note about the Federal Executive is that although the
Governor-General is the Executive Authority for the Federation, there are
conditions laid down for the exercise of his powers as the Federal Executive.
The constitution divides the matters falling within his executive authority into
four classes and prescribes how he is to exercise his executive authority in
respect of each of these four classes. In certain matters the Governor- General
(1) is to act in his own discretion ; (2) In certain matters he is to act on the
advice of his Ministers ; (3) in certain matters he is to act after consultation
with his Ministers, and (4) in certain matters he is to act according to his
individual judgment. A word may be said as to the de jure connotation that
underlies these four cases of the exercise of the executive authority by the
Governor-General. The best way to begin to explain this de jure connotation
is to begin by explaining what is meant by “acting on the advice of his
ministers.” This means, in those matters the government is really carried
on, on the authority of the Ministers and only in the name of the Governor-
General. To put the same thing differently, the advice of the Ministers is
binding on the Governor-General and he cannot differ from their advice.
With regard to the matters where the Governor- General is allowed “to act
in his discretion” what is meant is that the Government is not only carried
on in the name of the Governor-General, but is also carried on the authority
of the Governor-General. That means that there can be no intervention or
interference by the Ministers at any stage. The Ministers have no right to
tender any advice and the Governor- General is not bound to seek their advice ;
or to make it concrete, the files with regard to these matters need not go to
the Ministers at all. “Acting in his individual judgment” means that while the
matter is within the advisory jurisdiction of the Minister, the Minister has
no final authority to decide. The final authority to decide is the Governor-
General. The distinction between “in his discretion” and “in his individual
judgment” is this that while in regard to matters falling “in his discretion”
the Ministers have no right to tender advice to the Governor- General, the
Ministers have a right to tender advice when the matter is one which falls
under “his individual judgment”. To put it differently in regard to matters
which are subject to his individual judgment the Governor-General is bound
to receive advice from his ministers but is not bound to follow their advice.
He may consider their advice, but may act otherwise and differently from the
advice given by the Ministers. But in respect of matters which are subject
to his discretion he is not bound even to receive the advice of his Ministers.
The phrase “after consultation” is a mere matter of procedure. The authority
in such matter vests in the Governor-General. All that is required is that
he should take into account the wishes of the Ministers. Cases relating to

292

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

“acting after consultation” may be distinguished from cases relating to
“individual judgment” in this way. In cases relating to “individual judgment”
the authority vests in the Ministers. The Governor-General has the power
to superintend and, if necessary, overrule. In the cases falling under “after
consultation”, the authority belongs to the Governor-General and the Ministers
have the liberty to say what they wish should be done.

(c) The Federal Judiciary

The Government of India Act provides for the constitution of a Federal
Court as part of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Court is to consist of a
Chief Justice and such Puisne Judges as His Majesty thinks necessary, their
number not to exceed six until an address is presented by the Legislature
asking for an increase. The Federal Judiciary has original as well as appellate
jurisdiction. Section 204, which speaks of the Original Jurisdiction of the
Federal Court, prescribes that, that Court shall have exclusive Original
Jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation, the Provinces and the
federated States which involves any question of law or fact on which the
existence or extent of a legal right depends. This section, however, provides
that if a State is party then the dispute must concern the interpretation of
the Act or an Order in Council thereunder, or the extent of the legislative or
executive authority vested in the Federation by the Instrument of Accession
or arise under an Agreement under Part VI of the Act for the administration
of a federal law in the States, or otherwise concern some matter in which
the Federal Legislature has power to legislate for the States or arise under
an agreement made after federation with the approval of the Representative
of the Crown between the States and the Federation or a Province, and
includes provision for such jurisdiction. Even this limited jurisdiction of
the Federal Court over the States is further limited by the proviso that no
dispute is justiciable if it arises under an agreement expressly excluding
such jurisdiction.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court is regulated by section
205 and section 207. Section 205 says that an appeal shall lie to the
Federal Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in
British India if the High Court certified that the case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of this Act or an Order in Council
made thereunder. Section 207 relates to appeal from decision of Courts of
the Federated States. It says that an appeal shall be to the Federal Court
from a Court in a federated State on the ground that a question of law has
been wrongly decided, being a question which concerns the interpretation of
this Act or of any Order in Council made thereunder or the extent of the
legislative or executive authority vested in the Federation by virtue of the
Instrument of Accession of that State or arises under an Agreement made
under Part VI of this Act in relation to the administration in that State of
a law of the Federal Legislature ; but sub-section (2) to section 207 provides

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

293

that an appeal under this section shall be by way of a special case to be
stated for the opinion of the Federal Court by a High Court, and the Federal
Court may require a case to be so stated.

Two further points with regard to the Federal Judiciary may be noted.
The first is the power of the Federal Court to execute its own orders. The
Federal Court has no machinery of its own to enforce its orders. Section
210 provides that the orders of the Federal Court shall be enforceable by
all courts and authorities in every part of British India or of any Federated
State as if they were orders duly made by the highest court exercising civil
or criminal jurisdiction as the case may be in that part. The instrumentality,
therefore, which the Federal Court can use for the enforcement of its own
orders consists of the administrative machinery of the units of the Federation.
The units of the Federation are bound to act in aid of the Federal Court. This
is different to what prevails for instance, in the United States of America,
where the Supreme Court has its own machinery for enforcing its own orders.

The second point to note with regard to the Federal Court is the question
of the powers of the Executive to remove the judges and the power of the
Legislature to discuss their conduct. In this respect also the Federal Court
stands on a different footing from the Federal Courts in other Federations.
The Constitution does not give the Governor-General the power to suspend
a Judge of the Federal Court. It forbids any discussion of a judge’s judicial
conduct by the Legislature. This, no doubt, gives the judge of the Federal
Court the greatest fixity of tenure and immunity from interference by the
Executive or by the Legislature. To remove the Judiciary from the control of
the Executive it has been found necessary that the tenure of a judge must
not be subject to the pleasure of the Executive. All constitutions, therefore,
provide that the tenure of a judge shall be during good behaviour and that
a judge shall be removeable only if address is presented by the Legislature
pronouncing that he is not of good behaviour. Some such authority must be
vested in somebody which should have the power to pronounce upon the good
behaviour of a judge. This provision is absent in the Federal Constitution,
so that a Judge of the Federal Court once appointed is irremoveable from
his place till retirement, no matter what his conduct during that period
may be. Instead of this, power is given to His Majesty under section
200 (2)(b) to remove a Judge of the Federal Court on the ground of
misbehaviour or infirmity of body or mind if the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council reports that he may be removed on any such ground.

IV

POWERS OF THE FEDERATION

Before I describe the powers of the Federal Government it might be
desirable to explain what is the essence of a Federal Form of Government,

294

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

There is no simpler way of explaining it than by contrasting it with the
Unitary Form of Government.

Although the Federal Form of Government is distinct from the Unitary
form, it is not easy to see distinction. On the other hand, there is, outwardly
at any rate, a great deal of similarity between the two. The Government
of almost every country in these days is carried on by an inter-related
group of Administrative Units operating in specific areas and discharging
specific public functions. This is true of a country with a Federal Form of
Government and also of a country with a Unitary form of Government. In
a Federal Constitution there is a Central Government and there are inter-
related to it several Local Governments. In the same way in an Unitary
Constitution there is a Central Government and there are inter-related to
it several Local Governments. On the surface, therefore, there appears to
be no difference between the two.

There is, however, a real difference between them although it is not
obvious. That difference lies in the nature of the inter-relationship between
the Central and the Local Administrative Units. This difference may be
summed up in this way. In the Unitary Form of Government, the powers of
the local bodies are derived from an Act of the Central Government. That
being so the powers of the Local Government can always be withdrawn by
the Central Government. In the Federal form of Government the powers of
the Central Government as well as of the Local Government are derived
by the law of the Constitution which neither the Local Government nor
the Central Government can alter by its own Act. Both derive their powers
from the law of the Constitution and each is required by the Constitution to
confine itself to the powers given to it. Not only does the Constitution fix the
powers of each but the constitution establishes a judiciary to declare any Act
whether of the Local or the Central Government as void if it transgresses
the limits fixed for it by the Constitution. This is well stated by Clement in
his volume on the Canadian Constitution in the following passage :

“Apart from detail, the term federal union in these modern times implies

an agreement to commit people to the control of one

common government in relation to such matters as are agreed upon as of common
concern, leaving each local government still independent and autonomous in
all other matters, as a necessary corollary the whole-arrangement constitutes
a fundamental law to be recognised in and enforced through the agency of the
Courts.

“The exact position of the line which is to divide matters of common
concern to the whole federation from matters of local concern in each
unit is not of the essence of federalism. Where it is to be drawn in
any proposed scheme depends upon the view adopted by the federating
communities as to what, in their actual circumstances, geographical, com-

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

295

mercial, racial or otherwise, are really matters of common concern and as
such proper to be assigned to a common government. But the maintenance
of the line, as fixed by the federating agreement, is of the essence of modern
federalism; at least, as exhibited in the three great Anglo Saxon federations
today, the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia, and
the Dominion of Canada. Hence the importance and gravity of the duty
thrown upon the Courts as the only constitutional interpreter of the organic
instrument which contains the fundamental law of the land.”.

Thus to draw a line for the purpose of dividing the powers of Government
between the Central and Local Governments by the law of the Constitution
and to maintain that line through the judiciary are the two essential
features of the Federal Form of Government. It is these two features
which distinguish it from the Unitary Form of Government. In short
every federation involves two things : (1) Division of Powers by metes and
bounds between the Central Government and the Units which compose
it by the law of the Constitution, which is beyond the power of either
to change and to limit the action of each to the powers given and (2) a
Tribunal beyond the control of either to decide when the issue arises as
to whether any particular act of the Centre or of the Unit, Legislative,
Executive, Administrative or Financial is beyond the powers given to it
by the Constitution.

Having explained what is meant by Federal Government, I will now
proceed to give you some idea of the Powers which are assigned by the
constitution to the Federal Government.

(a) Legislative Powers of the Federation

For the purposes of distributing the Legislative Powers the possible
subjects of Legislation are listed into three categories. The first category
includes subjects, the exclusive right to legislate upon which is given to
the Federal Legislature. This list is called the Federal List. The second
category includes subjects, the exclusive right to legislate upon which is
given to the Provincial Legislature. The list is called the Provincial List.
The third category includes subjects over which both the Federal as well
as the Provincial Legislature have a right to legislate. This list is called
the Concurrent list. The scope and contents of these lists are given in
Schedule VII to the Government of India Act.

In accordance with the fundamental principles of Federation a law made
by the Federal Legislature if it relates to a matter which is included in
the Provincial List, would be ultra vires and a nullity. Similarly, if the
Provincial Legislature were to make a law relating to a matter falling
in the Federal List such a Provincial Law would be ultra vires and
therefore a nullity. This is, however declared by statute and section 107 is

296

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

now the law on the point. Cases of conflict of legislation touching the Federal
List and the Provincial List are not likely to occur often. But cases of conflict
between the two are sure to arise in the concurrent field of legislation. The
law as to that you will find in section 107. Sub-section ( 1 ) lays down when a
Federal Law shall prevail over a Provincial Law. Sub-section ( 2 ) lays down
as to when a Provincial Law shall prevail over the Federal Law. Reading
the sub-sections together the position in law is this. As a rule a Federal Law
shall prevail over a Provincial Law if the two are in conflict. But in cases
where the Provincial Law, having been reserved for the consideration of
the Governor- General or for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure, has
received the assent of the Governor- General or His Majesty, the Provincial
Law shall prevail until the Federal Legislature enacts further legislation with
respect to the same matter.

With regard to the question of this distribution of powers of legislation every
Federation is faced with a problem. That problem arises because there can be
no guarantee that enumeration of the subjects of legislation is exhaustive and
includes every possible subject of legislation. However complete and exhaustive
the listing may be there is always the possibility of some subject remaining
unenumerated. Every Federation has to provide for such a contingency and
lay down to whom the powers to legislate regarding these residuary subjects
shall belong. Should they be given to the Central Government or should they
be given to the Units ? Hitherto there has been only one way of dealing with
them. In some Federations, these residuary powers are given to the Central
Government, as in Canada. In some Federations they are given to the Units,
as in Australia. The Indian Federation has adopted a new way of dealing
with them. In the Indian Federation they are neither assigned to the Central
Government nor to the Provinces. They are in a way vested in the Governor-
General by virtue of section 104. When a Legislation is proposed on a subject
which is not enumerated in any of the three lists it is the Governor-General,
who is to decide whether the powers shall be exercised by the Federal
Legislature or by the Provincial Legislature.

(b) Executive Powers of the Federation

The first question is, what is the extent of the executive powers of the
Federation ? Is it co-extensive with the legislative powers ? In some of
the Federations this was not made clear by statute. It was left to judicial
decision. Such is the case in Canada. The Indian Constitution does not leave
this matter to courts to decide. It is defined expressly in the Act itself. The
relevant section is section 8(1). It says that the executive authority of the
Federation extends —

(а) to matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature has powers
to make laws ;

(б) to raising in British India on behalf of His Majesty of naval, military
and air forces and to the governance of His Majesty’s forces borne on
the Indian establishment;

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

297

(c) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are
exercisable by His Majesty by treaty, grant, usage, sufference, or
otherwise in and in relation to the tribal areas.

There is no difficulty in following the provisions of this sub-section. There
might perhaps be some difficulty in understanding sub-clause (a). It says
that the executive powers must be co-extensive with the legislative powers
of the Federation. Now the legislative power of the Federation extends not
only to the Federal List but also to the Concurrent List. Does the executive
power of the Federation extend to subjects included in the Concurrent List ?
Two points must be borne in mind before answering this question. First, the
Concurrent List is also subject to the legislative authority of the Province.
Second, according to section 49(2) that the executive authority of each
Province extends to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the
Province has power to make laws. The answer to the question whether the
executive authority of the Federation extends also to the Concurrent list is
that the Executive Authority in respect of the Concurrent List belongs to
the Federal Government as well as to the Provincial Government. This is
clear from the terms of section 126(2). It belongs to Provincial Government
except in so far as the Federal Legislature has covered the field. It belongs
to the Federal Government except in so far as the Provincial Legislature
has covered the field.

The Concurrent List is not the only list which is subject to Legislation by
the Federal Legislature. The Federal Legislature has the right to legislate
even on Provincial subjects under Section 102 in cases of emergency and under
Section 106 to give effect to international agreements. Does the Executive
Authority of the Federation extend to such matters also? The answer is
that when a field is covered by Federal Legislation that field also becomes
the field of Executive Authority of the Federation.

(c) Administrative Powers of the Federation

The Administrative Powers of the Federation follow upon the Executive
Powers of the Federation just as the Executive Powers of the Federation
follow upon the Legislative Powers of the Federation.

To this there is one exception. That exception relates to the administration
of subjects included in the Concurrent List. The Concurrent List is a list
to which the Legislative Authority of the Federation extends by virtue of
Section 100. As has already been pointed out the executive authority of the
Federation extends in so far as Federal Legislation has covered the field.
But the administrative powers for subjects falling in the Concurrent List do
not belong to the Federation. They belong to the Provinces.

(d) Financial Powers of the Federation

The revenues of the Federal Government are derived from four different
sources : (1) Revenue from Commercial Enterprise, (2) Revenue from

298

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Sovereign Functions; (3) Revenue from Tributes ; and (4) Revenue from
Taxes.

Under the first head fall all revenues from Posts and Telegraphs. Federal
Railways, banking profits and other commercial operations. Under the second
head come revenues from currency and coinage, from bona vacantia and
territories administered directly by the Federal Government. Under the third
head are included Contributions and Tributes from the Indian States.

The classification of Revenue from taxes follows upon the Powers of Taxation
given to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Powers of Taxation
given to the Federal Government fall into three main categories. In the first
category fall those powers of taxation which is wholly appropriable by the
Federal Government. In the second category, fall those powers of taxation
which are exercisable for raising revenue which is divisible between the Federal
Government and the Provincial Governments.

The heads of revenue which fall under the first category of Taxing Powers
cover those which are specifically mentioned in the Federal List —

1. Duties of customs, including export duties.

2. Duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced
in India except —

(a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption ;

(b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics, non-
narcotic drugs ;

(c) medical and toilet preparations containing alcoholic, or any sub-
stance included in sub-paragraph ( b ) of this entry.

3. Corporation tax.

4. Salt.

5. State lotteries.

6. Taxes on income other than agricultural income.

7. Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land
of individuals and companies ; taxes, on the capital of companies.

8. Duties in respect of succession to property other than agricultural land.

9. The rates of stamp duty in respect of bills of exchange, cheques,
promissory notes, bills of lading, letters of credit, policies of insurance
proxies and receipts.

10. Terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by railway or air ; taxes
on railway fares and freights.

11. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list but not including fees
taken in any court.

In connection with this, attention might be drawn to the following items
in the Concurrent List :

1. Marriage and divorce.

2. Wills, intestacy and succession.

3. Transfer of Property and other agricultural lands.

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

299

Being in the Concurrent list, the Federal Legislature has power to
legislate upon with respect to these. Can the Federal Legislature also while
legislating upon them raise revenue from them ? The Act does not seem to
furnish any answer to this question. It may however be suggested that the
rules contained in section 104 regarding the exercise of Residuary Powers
will also apply here.

The sources of revenue which are made divisible by the Constitution are :
(1) Income Tax other than Corporation Tax and (2) Jute Export duty. Those
which are made divisible according to the Federal Law are : (1) Duty on
Salt, (2) Excise duty on Tobacco and other goods and (3) Duties of Export.

In respect of the financial powers of the Federation there is one feature
which by reason of its pecularity is deserving of attention. The Act in giving
the Federal Government the right to tax, makes a distinction between power
to levy the tax and the right to collect it and even where it gives the power
to levy the tax it does not give it the right to collect it. This is so in the
case of surcharge on Income tax and the Corporation tax. The Income tax
is only leviable in the Provinces and not in the States although it is a tax
for Federal purposes. The State subjects are liable to pay only a Federal
surcharge on Income Tax because such a surcharge is leviable both within
the Provinces as well as the States. But under section 138(3) the Federal
Government has no right to collect it within the States. The collection is
left to the Ruler of the State. The Ruler, instead of collecting the surcharge
from his subjects, may agree to pay the Federation a lump sum and the
Federation is bound to accept the same. Similar is the case with regard to
the Corporation tax. The Federation can levy it on State subjects but cannot
collect it directly by its own agency. Section 139 provides that the collection
of the Corporation tax shall as of right be the function of the Ruler.

V

CHARACTER OF THE FEDERATION

(1) The Nature of the Union

How does the Indian Federation compare with other Federations ? This is
not only a natural inquiry but it is also a necessary inquiry. The method of
comparison and contrast is the best way to understand the nature of a thing.
This comparison can be instituted from points of view. There is no time for
a comparison on so vast a scale. I must confine this comparison to some
very moderate dimensions. Therefore I propose to raise only four questions :
(1) Is this Federation a perpetual Union? (2) What is the relationship of
the Units to the Federal Government? (3) What is the relationship of the
Units as between themselves ? (4) What is the relationship of the people
under the Units ?

There is no doubt that the accession of the Indian States to the Federation
is to be perpetual so long as the Federation created by the Act is in

300

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

existence. While the Federation exists there is no right to secede. But that
is not the real question. The real question is, will the federation continue
even when the Act is changed ? In other words the question is, is this a
perpetual Union with no right to secede or, is this a mere alliance with a
right to break away? In my opinion the Indian Federation is not a perpetual
union and that the Indian States have a right to secede. In this respect the
constitution of the United States and this Indian Federation stand in clear
contrast. The constitution of the United States says nothing as to the right
of secession. This omission was interpreted in two different ways. Some said
that it was not granted because it was copy recognized. Others said it was
not excluded because it was not negatived. It was this controversy over the
question namely whether the right of secession was excluded because it was
not recognized which led to the Civil War of 1861. The Civil War settled
two important principles : (1) No State has a right to declare an Act of the
Federal Government invalid ; (2) No State has a right to secede from the
Union. In the Indian Federation it would be unnecessary to go to war for
establishing the right to secession because the Constitution recognizes the
right of the Indian States to secede from the Indian Federation if certain
eventualities occur. What is a perpetual Union and what is only a compact
is made nowhere so clear as by Blackstone in his analysis of the nature of
the Union between England and Scotland. To use his language the Indian
Federation is not an incorporate Union because in a Union the two contracting
States are totally annihilated without any power of revival. The Indian
Federation is an alliance between two contracting parties, the Crown and
the Indian States, in which neither is annihilated but each reserves a right
to original Status if a breach of condition occurs. The Constitution of the
United States originated in a compact but resulted in a union. The Indian
Federation originates in a compact and continues as a compact. That the
Indian Federation has none of the marks of a Union but on the other hand
it has all the marks of a compact is beyond dispute. The distinguishing
marks of a Union were well described by Daniel Webster, when in one of
his speeches on the American Constitution he said —

“ ...The constitution speaks of that political system which is established as ‘the
Government of the United States’. Is it not doing a strange violence to languages
to call a league or a compact between sovereign powers a Government ? The
Government of a State is that organisation in which political power resides”.

“ ...The broad and clear difference between a government and a league
or a compact is that a government is a body politic ; it has a will of its
own ; and it possesses powers and faculties to execute its own purposes
Every compact looks to some power to enforce its stipulations. Even
in a compact between sovereign communities, there always exists this
ultimate reference to a power to ensure its execution ; although in such

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

301

a case, this power is but the force of one party against the force of another;
that is to say, the power of war. But a Government executes its decisions by
its own supreme authority. Its use of force in compelling obedience to its own
enactments is not war. It contemplates no opposing party having a right of
resistance. It rests on its power to enforce its own will; and when it ceases to
possess this power it is no longer a Government”.

In the light of this the following facts should be noted. The Act does not
ordain and establish a Federal Government for British India and the Indian
States. The Act ordains and establishes a Federal Government for British
India only. The Federal Government will become a Government for the
States only when each State adopts it by its Instrument of Accession. Again
note that the subjection of the States to the Federal Government is not to
be for all times. It is to continue only under certain circumstances. It is to
continue so long as certain provisions of the Act are continued without a
change. Thirdly, where change in the provisions is permissible such change
shall not bind the State unless it agrees to be bound by it.

All these are unmistakable signs which show that the Indian Federation
is a compact and not a perpetual Union. The essence of a compact is that
it reserves the right to break away and to return to the original position.

In this respect therefore the Indian Federation differs from the Federations
in U.S.A., Canada and Australia. It differs from the U.S.A., because the
right to secede is recognized by the Indian Constitution if the constitution is
altered, while it is not recognized by the Constitution of the U.S.A., even if
the constitution is altered against the wishes of a particular State. In regard
to Australia and Canada such a question cannot really arise and if it did, a
civil war would be quite unnecessary to decide the issue. In these federations
the sovereignty, whether it is exercised by the Federal Governments or the
Units belongs to the Crown and the maintenance of the Federation or its
breakup remains with the King and Parliament. Neither the Federation nor
the Units could decide the issue otherwise than with the consent of Parliament.
If a break-up came, it would be a mere withdrawal of the sovereignty of the
Crown and its re-distribution which the Crown is always free to do. The
break up could be legal and even if it was perpetrated by non-legal means it
could give sovereignty to the rebellious units because it belongs to the Crown.
The same would have been the case, if the Indian Federation had been the
Federation of British Indian Provinces only. No question of secession could
have arisen. The Provinces would have been required to remain in the position
in which the Crown might think it best to place them. The Indian Federation
has become different because of the entry of the Indian States. The entry
of the Indian States is not for all times and under all circumstances. Their
entry is upon terms and conditions. That being so the Indian Federation

302

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

could not be a perpetual union. Indeed, the Indian States would not enter
into matrimony with the Indian Provinces unless the terms of divorce were
settled before-hand. And so they are. That is why the Indian Federation is
a compact and not a union.

(2) Relationship of the Units to the Federal Government

That each separate unit should have approximately equal political rights
is a general feature of federations. Equality of status among the different
units is a necessity. To make them unequal in status is to give units the
power to become dominant partners. The existence of dominant partners
in a federation, as observed by Dicey is fraught with two dangers. Firstly,
the dominant partners may exercise an authority almost inconsistent with
federal equality. Secondly, it may create combinations inside the Federation
of dominant units and subordinate units and vice versa. To prevent such
an unhealthy state of affairs, all federations proceed upon the principle of
equality of status. How far does this principle obtain in the Indian Federation?

(a) In the matter of Legislation

As you know for purposes of Legislation the field is divided into three
parts and there are three lists prepared which are called the Federal List,
the Concurrent List and the Provincial List.

The Federal List contains 59 items as subjects of legislation. The Concurrent
List contains 36 items.

The first thing to note is that both these lists are binding upon the
Provinces. They cannot pick and choose as to the matters in these two lists
in respect of which they will subject themselves to the authority of the
Federation. The Provinces have no liberty to contract out of these two lists.
The position of a Federating State is quite different. A Federating State can
wholly keep itself out of the Concurrent List. Under section 6(2) there is no
objection to the Ruler of any Indian State to agree to federate in respect
of matters included in the Concurrent List. But there is no obligation upon
them to do so. Such an agreement is not a condition precedent to their
admission into the Federation.

With regard to the Federal List, there is no doubt an obligation on
the Ruler of a State to subject himself to the legislative authority of
the Federation in respect of the Federal List, but his subjection to the
Federation will be confined to matters specified by him in his Instrument
of Accession. There are as I stated altogether 59 items in the Federal List.
There is no obligation upon the Prince to accept all subjects in the Federal
List as a condition precedent for his entry into Federation. He may accept
some only or he may accept all. Again one Ruler may accept one item
and another Ruler may accept another. There is no rule laid down in the
constitution that some items must be accepted by every Ruler who chooses

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

303

to enter the Federation. The Federation, therefore, while it affects British
India and the Provinces uniformly and completely so far as the legislative
authority of the Federation is concerned, it touches different States in
different degrees. A Ruler may federate in respect of one subject yet he is
as good a member of the Federation as a Ruler who accepts all the fifty -
nine items in the Federal List.

The Provincial List is a list which is subject to the exclusive Legislative
authority of the Provinces. There is no corresponding State List given in the
Act for the Federated States. It cannot be given. But it can be said that it
includes all these subjects which are not surrendered by the State to the
Federation. Now with regard to the exclusive authority of the Provincial
Legislature, still in the event of emergency it is open to the Federal Legislature
to make laws for a Province or any part thereof with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in the Provincial List, it the Governor-General has
in his discretion declared under section 102 by proclamation that a grave
emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened whether by
way of war or by internal disturbances. There is no such provision in respect
of the Indian States. A grave emergency which threatens India may quite
well arise within a State as it may within the territories of a Province. It
is thus clear that while the Federal Legislature can intervene and make
laws for a Province when there is emergency, it cannot intervene and make
laws for the Federated States under similar circumstances.

(b) In the matter of the Executive

Again in the matter of the Executive, the States and the Provinces do
not stand on the same footing. Section 8 defines the scope of the executive
authority of the Federation which according to section 7 is exercisable by
the Governor-General on behalf of His Majesty. According to sub-section (1)
to sub-clause (a) the authority of the Federal Executive extends to matters
with respect to which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws,
but this clause has not the same application with respect to the States as
it has with respect to the provinces. With regard to the provinces it has
authority in all matters which are included in the Federal Legislative List.
It has also exclusive authority with respect to certain matters included in
the Concurrent List subject to certain limitations ; but with regard to the
States the case is very different. With regard to the States the Federation
can have no executive authority in respect of subjects in the Concurrent
List, but also the Federation is not entitled to have exclusive authority with
respect to matters included in the Federal Legislative List. Sub -clause 2 of
section 8 is very important. It says :

“The executive authority of the Ruler of a Federated State shall,

notwithstanding anything in this section, continue to be exercisable in that

State with respect to matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature

304

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

has power to make laws for that State except in so far as the executive authority
of the Federation becomes exercisable in the State to the exclusion of the
executive authority of the Ruler by virtue of a federal law.”.

In plain language what the sub-section means is this — With regard to a
province the executive authority of the Federation extends to all matters
over which the Federation has legislative authority. With regard to the
State the position is different. The mere fact that the federal legislature has
authority to legislate in respect of a subject does not give the Federation any
executive authority over the State in respect of that subject. Such executive
authority can be conferred only as a result of a law passed by the Federation.
Whether it is possible to pass such a law is problematic in view of the large
representation which the States have in Federal Legislature. Whatever may
be the eventuality, in theory the executive authority of the Federation does
not extend to a Federated State. The position is that while with regard to
the provinces the Federation can legislate as well as execute, in the case of
the Federated States, the Federation can legislate, but cannot execute. The
execution may be with the State.

(c) In the matter of administration

When you begin to examine the constitution from the point of view of
administration you will find certain sections in the Act which lay down rules
for the guidance of the Federal Government, of the Provincial Governments
and of the State Governments. The purpose of the sections is to tell them how
they should exercise the executive authority belonging to them respectively.
These sections are 122, 126 and 128.

Section 122 is addressed to the Federal Government. It reads as follows :

“122. (1) The executive authority of every Province and Federated State shall
be so exercised as to secure respect for the laws of the Federal Legislature
which apply in that Province or State.

( 2 ) The reference in sub-section (1) of this section to laws of the Federal
Legislature shall, in relation to any Province, include a reference to any existing
Indian Law applying in that Province.

(3) Without prejudice to any of the other provisions of this part of this Act,
in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation in any Province or
Federated State regard shall be had to the interests of that Province or State.”.

Section 126 is addressed to the Provincial Governments. It provides that —

“126 (1) The executive (authority of every Province shall be so exercised
as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority of the
Federation, and the executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the
giving of such directions to a Province as may appear to the Federal Government
to be necessary for that purpose.”.

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

305

Section 128 is addressed to the States. It runs as follows :

“128. ( 1 ) The executive authority of every Federated State shall be so
exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority
of the Federation so far as it is exercisable in the State by virtue of the law
of the Federal Legislature which applies therein.

(2) If it appears to the Governor- General that the Ruler of any Federated
State has in any way failed to fulfil his obligations under the preceding sub-
section, the Governor- General, acting in his discretion, may after considering
any representations made to him by the Ruler, issue such directions to the
Ruler as he thinks fit :

Provided that if any question arises under this section as to whether the
executive authority of the Federation is exercisable in a State with respect
to which it is so exercisable, the question may, at the instance either of the
Federation or the Ruler, be referred to the Federal Court for determination by
that Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under this Act.’

All these sections would have been very useful if there was any possibility
of conflict in the exercise of their executive authority by these agencies.
But these will be quite unnecessary because there would be as a matter
of fact no conflict of executive authority which can arise only when such
executive authority is followed by administrative act. When administration
is divorced from Executive Authority there is no possibility of conflict and
the admonitions contained in such sections are quite unnecessary.

Now it is possible that in the Federal Constitution the Federal Government
may be altogether denuded of its powers of administration and may be made
just as a frame without any spring of action in it. The constitution provides
that the Governor-General of the Federal Legislature may provide that the
administration of a certain law passed by it instead of being carried on by
the Federal Executive might be entrusted to Units i.e. to the Provincial
Governments and the Indian States. This is clear from the terms of section
124 :

“124. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Governor-General may,
with the consent of the Government of a Province or the Ruler of a Federated
State, entrust either conditionally to the Government or Ruler or to their
respective Officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive
authority of the Federation extends.

(2) An Act of the Federal Legislature may, notwithstanding that it relates
to a matter with respect to which a Provincial Legislature has no power to
make laws, confer powers and impose duties upon a Province or officers and
authorities thereof.

(3) An Act of the Federal Legislature which extends to a Federated State
may confer powers and impose duties upon the State or officers and authorities
thereof to be designated for the purpose by the Ruler.

306

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

( 4 ) Where by virtue of this section powers and duties have been conferred
or imposed upon a Province or a Federated State or officers or authorities
thereof, there shall be paid by the Federation to the Province or State such
sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined
by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of any
extra cost of administration incurred by the Province or State in connection
with the exercise of those powers and duties.”

It is quite possible for States and Provinces to combine to rob the
Federation of all administrative powers and make it only a law making
body.

A more staggering situation however is created by section 125. It is
in the following terms:

“125. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, agreements may, and, if
provision has been made in that behalf by the Instrument of Accession of
the State, shall be made between the Governor-General and the Ruler of
a Federated State for the exercise by the Ruler or his officers of functions
in relation to the administration in his State of any law of the Federal
Legislature which applies therein.

(2) An agreement made under this section shall contain provisions enabling
the Governor-General in his discretion to satisfy himself, by inspection or
otherwise that the administration of the law to which the agreement relates
is carried out in accordance with the policy of the Federal Government and,
if he is not so satisfied, the Governor-General, acting in his discretion, may
issue such directions to the Ruler as he thinks fit.

(3) All courts shall take judicial notice of any agreement made under
this section.”.

This section means that a State by its Instrument of Accession may
stipulate that the administration of Federal laws in the State shall be
carried out by the State agency and not by the agency of the Federation
and if it does so stipulate then the Federation shall have no administrative
power inside the State. The benefit of a law depends upon its administration.
A law may turn out to be of no avail because the administration is
either inefficient or corrupt. To deprive the Federal Government of its
administrative powers is really to cripple the Federal Government. There
is no Federation in which some units of the Federation are permitted to
say that the Federal Government shall have no administrative powers in
their territory. The Indian Federation is an exception. Not only is there a
difference between the Provinces and the States in this matter but they
also differ in their liability to supervision and direction by the Federal

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

307

Government in the matter of the exercise of their executive authority. That
difference will be clear if you will compare section 126 with section 128.

Section 126 enacts that the executive authority of every province shall
be exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive
authority of the Federation and the executive authority of the Federation
shall extend to the giving of such directions to a Province as may appear
to the Federal Government to be necessary for that purpose. Section 128
is a section which enacts a similar rule with respect to a Federated State,
but there is a significant difference between the two sections. Section 126
says that the executive authority of the Federation extends to the giving of
such directions to a province as may appear to the Federal Government to
be necessary for that purpose, while section 128 does not give such a power.
That means that the Federation does not possess the inherent executive
authority to give a direction to the Ruler of a Federated State to prevent
him from so exercising the executive authority of the State as to impede
or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation. That
is one very significant difference. Such authority, instead of being given to
the Federation, is given to the Governor-General, who, of course, under the
law is distinct from the Federal Government and it is the Governor- General
who is empowered to issue such directions to the Ruler as he thinks fit.
A further distinction is also noticeable. When directions are issued to the
Governor of a province under section 126 he is bound to carry them out. He
has no right to question the necessity of the directions nor can he question
the capacity of the Governor-General to issue such directions. With regard
to the Ruler of a State, however, the position is entirely different. He can
question such a direction, and have the matter adjudicated in the Federal
Court, because the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 128 says that if any
question arises under this section as to whether the executive authority
under this section of the Federation is exercisable in a State with respect
to any matter or as to the extent to which it is so exercisable, the question
may at the instance either of the Federation or the Ruler be referred to the
Federal Court for determination by that Court.

(3) In the matter of Finance

Coming to the question of Finance, the disparity between the Provinces
and the States is a glaring disparity. Take the case of the taxing authority
of the Federation over the Provinces and the States. It may be noted that
the revenues of the Federation are derivable from sources which fall under
two main heads — those derived from taxation and those not derived from
taxation. Those not derived from taxation fall under six heads —

(1) Fees in respect of matters included in the Federal List.

(2) Profits, if any, on the work of the Postal Services, including Postal
Savings Banks.

(3) Profits, if any, on the operation of Federal Railways.

308

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(4) Profits, if any, from Mint and Currency operations.

(5) Profits, if any, from any other Federal enterprise, such as Reserve
Bank, and

(6) Direct contribution to the Crown from Federated or non-Federated
States.

As regards the revenues derived from taxation under the Government of
India Act, they fall under two heads; Ordinary taxation and Extraordinary
taxation. Ordinary taxation includes levy from following sources :

(1) Customs duties;

(2) Export duties;

(3) Excise duties;

(4) Salt;

(5) Corporation tax;

(6) Tax on income, other than agricultural; and

(7) Property Taxes i.e., taxes on Capital value of the individual assets
or a property.

The extraordinary revenue falls under following heads :

(1) Surcharges on Income-tax.

(2) Surcharges on succession duties.

(3) Surcharges on terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by rail
or air and all taxes on railway freights.

(4) Surcharges on Stamp duties, etc.

Now, while the provinces are liable to bear taxation under any of these
heads whether the taxation is of an ordinary character or is of an extraordinary
character, the same is not true of the States. For instance, the States are
not liable in ordinary time to ordinary taxes falling under heads 6 and 7,
while the Provinces are liable,

With regard to extraordinary taxation, the States are not liable to
contribute even in times of financial stringency the taxes levied under
items 2, 3 and 4 and even where they are liable to contribute under head
1 of the extraordinary sources of revenue, it must be certified that all other
economies have been made.

There is another difference from the financial point of view between the
States and the Provinces. The field of taxation for provincial Governments
has been defined in the Act. A provincial Government cannot raise revenue
from any source other than those mentioned in the Act. Such is not the
case with the State. There is nothing in the Government of India Act,
which defines the powers of a Federated State with regard to its system
of taxation. It may select any source of taxation to raise revenue for the
purpose of internal administration and may even levy customs duties upon
articles entering its territory from a neighbouring province although that
neighbouring province is a unit of the Federal Government of which the

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

309

Federated State is also a unit. This is a most extraordinary feature of this
Indian Federation and also one of its worst features. One of the results of
a Federation, if not its primary object, has been the freedom of trade and
commerce inside the territory of the Federation. There is no federation known
to history which has permitted one unit of the Federation to levy customs
duties or raise other barriers with a view to prevent inter-State commerce.
The Indian Federation is an exception to that rule and this is a feature of
the Indian Federation which makes it stand out in glaring contrast with
other federations with which people are familiar today.

One of the characteristics of a Federal Constitution is that although the
territory comprised in the Federation is distributed or held by different units,
still they constitute one single territory. At any rate for customs purposes
the territory is treated as a single unit. Every Federal Constitution contains
powers and prohibitions to prevent trade and customs barriers being erected
by one unit against another.

The American constitution by Section 9 of Article II prohibits a State from
preventing the import or export of goods or from levying import or export
duties upon goods passing in or out of the State boundary. Section 8(5) of
Article II gives the Federal Government the power of regulating trade or
commerce between the States of the Union.

In Australia by virtue of Section 92 of its Constitution both the States and
the Federal Government are bound so to exercise their power of regulation
as not to transgress the fundamental guarantee of the Constitution embodied
in Section 92 that “trade and commerce among the States whether by means
of internal carriage or ocean navigation shall be absolutely free”.

In Canada section 121 enacts that “all articles of the growth, produce
or manufacture of any one Province shall, from and after the Union, be
admitted free into each of the other Provinces.”

In the Indian Constitution the provision relating to freedom of trade
and commerce within the Federation is contained in Section 297. It reads
as follows :

“297. (1) No Provincial Legislature or Government shall —

(a) by virtue of the entry in the Provincial Legislative List relating to
trade and commerce within the Province, or the entry in that list
relating to the production, supply, and distribution of commodities,
have power to pass any law or take any executive action prohibiting
or restricting the entry into, or export from, the Province of goods
of any class or description ; or

( b ) by virtue of anything in this Act have power to impose any tax, cess,
toll, or due which, as between goods manufactured or produced in
the Province and similar goods not so manufactured or produced,
discriminates in favour of the former, or which, in the case of goods
manufactured or produced outside the Province, discriminates between

310

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

goods manufactured or produced in one locality and similar goods
manufactured or produced in another locality.

(2) Any law passed in contravention of this shall, to the extent of the

contravention, be invalid.”

Now it will be clear from the terms of this section that the freedom of
trade and commerce is confined only to the provinces. That means the Indian
States are free to prohibit the entry of goods from the Provinces absolutely
or subject them to duty. This is quite contrary to the fundamental idea
underlying a federal union. To allow one unit of the Federation to carry on
commercial warfare against another unit is nothing but negation of federation.

(4) Relationship of the People under the Federation

Before I enter into this question it is necessary to clear the ground by
pointing out certain distinctions. The words ‘State’ and ‘Society’ are often
presented as though there was a contrast between the two. But there is no
distinction of a fundamental character between a State and a society. It is
true that the plenary powers of the State operate through the sanction of law
while society depends upon religious and social sanctions for the enforcement
of its plenary powers. The fact, however, remains that both have plenary
powers to coerce. As such, there is no contrast between state and society.
Secondly, the persons composing society are persons who are also members
of the State. Here again, there is no difference between State and Society.

There is, however, one difference, but it is of another kind. Every person,
who is a member of society and dwells in it, is not necessarily a member
of the State. Only those who dwell within the boundary of the State do
not necessarily belong to the State. This distinction between those, who
belong to the State and those who do not, is very crucial and should not be
forgotten because it has important consequences. Those who belong to State
are members and have the benefits of membership which consists of the
totality rights and duties which they possess over against the State. From
the side of duty the relation is best indicated by the word subject, from
the side of rights it is best designated by the word citizen. This difference
involves the consequence that those who dwell in the State without belonging
to it have no benefit of membership which means that they are foreigners
and not citizens.

Theoretically, the task of differentiating the foreigners from the citizens
of a State would seem to be an easy task, in fact, almost a mechanical task.
This is particularly true of an Unitary State. Here there is a simple question :
What is the relation of this State as against any and all foreign States ? In
a Federal State the matter is complicated by the fact that every individual
stands in a dual relationship. On the one hand, he sustains certain relations
to the Federal State as a whole ; and on the other he sustains certain
relations to the State in which he may reside. The moment an attempt is

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

311

made to define the status of a person in a Federal State, therefore, not
one question, but several must be answered : What is the relation of this
person to the Federal State, as against any and all foreign States ? What
is the relation of this person to the State in which he resides ? Further is
it possible to be a citizen of one State and not a citizen of Federal State ?

Such questions did not arise in Canada and Australia when they became
federations. The reason was that persons residing in their respective units
were natural born British subjects — a status which remained with them when
the Federation came. After the Federation the powers of naturalization was
given to the Federation and consequently every one who is naturalized by
the Federation is a citizen of the Federation and therefore of every unit in it.

Such questions however did arise in the U.S.A., Switzerland and Germany,
because before the Federation their units were all foreign States and their
subjects were foreign subjects. But it is noteworthy that in all these cases a
common citizenship was established as a part of the federation. A rule was
established whereby it was accepted that a citizenship of one unit carried
with it a citizenship of the Federation.

The case of the Indian Federation is similar to that of the U.S.A., Germany
and Switzerland. The subject of an Indian State is a foreigner in British
India as well as in another Indian State. The subject of a British Indian
Province is a foreigner in every Indian State.

What does the Indian Federation do with regard to this matter? Does
it forge a common Citizenship for all Units which become members of the
Federation ? The answer is no. A British Indian will continue to be a foreigner
in every Indian State even though it is a Federal State after the Federation,
as he was before the Federation. Similarly a subject of a Federated Indian
State will be a foreigner in every British Indian Province after the Federation
as he was before Federation. There is no common nationality. The whole
principle of the Federation is that the ruler of a Federated State shall remain
the ruler of the State and his subjects shall remain his subjects and the
Crown as the ruler of the Federated Provinces shall remain the ruler of the
Provinces and his subjects shall remain his subjects.

This difference in citizenship manifests itself in two specific ways.

Firstly, it manifests itself in the matter of right to serve. Federation being
established under the Crown, only persons who are subjects of the Crown are
entitled to serve under it. This is recognized by Section 262. This of course
is an injustice to the subjects of the States. To prevent this injustice which
of course is a logical consequence of difference of citizenship, power is given
to the Secretary of State to declare the subjects of the Indian States eligible
for service under the Federation. This is an anomalous state of affairs and
although the injustice to Indian State subjects is mitigated, the injustice

312

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

against British Indians in the matter of right to employment in Indian States
continues. For, Indian States are not required to declare that British Indians
shall be deemed to be eligible for service under them. That notwithstanding
Federation such an anomaly should exist shows that this Federation is a
freak.

Secondly, this difference in citizenship shows itself in the terms of the
oath prescribed for members of the Legislature by Schedule IV.

In the case of a member who is a British subject the form of the oath
is as under :

“I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated or appointed) a member of this
Council (or Assembly), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance to His Majesty the King, Emperor of India, His heirs
and successors, and that I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am
about to enter.”

In the case of a person who is a subject of a Ruler of an Indian State
the form of the oath is as follows :

“I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated or appointed) a member of this
Council (or Assembly), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that saving the faith and
allegiance which I owe to C.D., his heirs and successors, I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance in any capacity as Member of this Council (or Assembly)
to His Majesty the King, Emperor of India, His heirs and successors, and that
I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter.”

The subject of an Indian State, it is obvious from the terms of the oath,
owes a double allegiance. He owes allegiance to the ruler of his State and
also to the King. Superficially the position seems not very different from
what one find in the United States. In the United States the individual is
a citizen of the Union as well as of the State and owes allegiance to both
powers. Each power has a right to Command his obedience. But ask the
question, to which, in case of conflict, is obedience due and you will see the
difference between the two. On this question this is what Bryce has to say :

“The right of the State to obedience is wider in the area of matters which it
covers. Prima facie every State-law, every order of a competent State authority
binds the citizen, whereas the National government has but a limited power; it
can legislate or command only for certain purposes or on certain subjects. But
within the limits of its power, its authority is higher than that of the State,
must be obeyed even at the risk of disobeying the State.

“Any act of a State Legislature or a State Executive conflicting with
the Constitution, or with an act of the National Government, done under
the Constitution, is really an act not of the State Government, which

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

313

cannot legally act against the Constitution, but of persons falsely assuming
to act as such government, and is therefore ipso jure void. Those who disobey
Federal authority on the ground of the commands of a State authority are
therefore insurgents against the Union who must be coerced by its power. The
coercion of such insurgents is directed not against the State but against them
as individuals though combined wrongdoers. A State cannot secede and cannot
rebel. Similarly, it cannot be coerced.”.

Can the Federal Government in India take the stand which the Union
Government can when there is a conflict of allegiance ? There can be no
doubt that it cannot, for the simple reason that the allegiance to the King
saves the allegiance to the Ruler. This is a very unhappy if not a dangerous
situation.

(5) Strength of the Federal Frame

The existence in the country of one Government which can speak and act
in the name of and with the unified will of the whole nation is no doubt the
strongest Government that can be had and only a strong Government can
be depended upon to act in an emergency. The efficiency of a Governmental
system must be very weak where there exists within a country a number of
Governments which are distinct centres of force, which constitute separately
organized political bodies into which different parts of the nation’s strength
flows and whose resistance to the will of the Central Government is likely to
be more effective than could be the resistance of individuals, because such
bodies are each of them endowed with a government, a revenue, a militia,
a local patriotism to unite them. The former is the case where the unitary
system of Government prevails. The latter is the case where the Federal
form of Government prevails.

The Indian Federation by reason of the fact that it is a Federation
has all the weaknesses of a Federal form of Government. But the Indian
Federation has its own added weaknesses which are not to be found in
other Federations and which are likely to devitalize it altogether. Compare
the Indian Federation with the Federation of the United States. As Bryce
says, “the authority of the national Government over the citizens of every
State is direct and immediate, not exerted through the State organization,
and not requiring the co-operation of the State Government. For most
purposes the National Government ignores the States, and it treats the
citizens equally bound by its laws. The Federal Courts, Revenue Officers
and Post Office draw no help from any State Officials, but depend directly

on Washington There is no local self-Government in Federal

Matters the Federal authority, be it executive or judicial,

acts upon the citizens of a State directly by means of its own officers who
are quite distinct from and independent of State Officials. Federal indirect
taxes, for instance, are levied all along the coast and over the country by
Federal custom-house collectors and excisemen acting under the orders

314

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of the treasury department at Washington. The judgments of Federal Courts
are carried out by U.S. Marshals, likewise dispersed over the country and
supplied with a staff of assistants. This is a provision of the utmost importance,
for it enables the central, national Government to keep its fingers upon
the people everywhere, and make its laws and the commands of its duly
constituted authorities respected whether the State within whose territory
it acts be heartily loyal or not, and whether the law which is being enforced
be popular or abnoxious. The machinery of the national Government ramifies
over the whole union as the nerves do over the whole body, placing every
point in direct connection with the Central executive.”.

Not one of these things can be predicated of the Indian Federation. It
is a dependent Government and its relation with the people is not direct.

In the United States, the States as States have no place in the Central
Government and although the States elect representatives to the Federal
Legislature, political action at the centre does not run in State channels.
There is no combination of States into groups and it is not the fashion for
States to combine in an official way through their State organizations. How
different is the Indian Federation! States, as such, have been given de jure
recognition, they have been given de jure exemptions, and immunities from
law. There are great possibilities of combined action and counteraction by
States and Provinces over these exemptions and immunities. This is another
reason which leads to the feeling that the Indian Federation will have very
little vitality.

VI

BENEFITS OF THE FEDERAL SCHEME

The protagonists of the Federal Scheme have urged three grounds in
favour of the acceptance of the Scheme. The first ground is that it helps to
unite India. The second ground is that it enables British India to influence
Indian India and to gradually transform the autocracy that is prevalent
in Indian India into the democracy that exists in British India. The third
ground is that the Federal Scheme is a scheme which embodies what is
called Responsible Government.

These three arguments in favour of the Federal Scheme are urged in
such seriousness and the authority of those who urge them is so high that
it becomes necessary to examine the substance that underlies them.

1. Federation and the Unity of India

The advantages of common system of Government are indeed very real.
To have a common system of law, a common system of administration and
a feeling of oneness are some of the essentials of good life. But they are all
the results which follow from a common life led under a common system of
Government. Other things being equal, a federation as a common system
of Government for the whole of India should be welcome. But does this
Federation unite under one governmental system the whole territory called
India in the Government of India Act, 1935 ? Is this an All India Federation ?

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

315

That this fededation includes British India is of course true; when Provinces
are declared to be the units of the Federation it means that British India is
included in the Federation. Because the Provinces which are declared to be
the units of the Federation compromise what is called Indian India. Indian
India is no small tract. The following figures of area and population will
give a comparative idea of the extent of British India and this Indian India:

Area in square miles

Population

(1931)

(1931)

British India excluding Burma and Aden.

8,62,630

2,56,859,787

Indian States

7,12,508

81,310,845

It will be seen that Indian India comprises 39 per cent of the population
and 31 per cent of India as a whole.

How much of this Indian India is going to be brought under this Federation?

Many will be inclined to say that as this is spoken of as an All India
Federation every inch of this area will be included in the Federation and will
be subject to the authority of the Federal Government Such an impression
is no doubt created by the wording of Section 6(1) which relates to the
accession of the states. This section speaks of a Ruler declaring his desire
to join the Federation and thereby suggesting that every State is entitled
to join the Federation. If this is true, then no doubt the Federation can in
course of time be an All India Federation. But this impression is wrong.
Such an impression cannot arise if Section 6(1) is read with Schedule I of
the Act Schedule I is merely thought of as a schedule which contains a Table
of Seats for the Rulers. This is a very incomplete reading of the Schedule.
The Schedule does more than that. It not only gives a table of seats, but
also enumerates the States which are entitled to join the Federation and
thereby fixes the maximum number of States which can come within the
Federation if they wish to do so. In other words it is not open to every
State to join the Federation. Only those enumerated can join. This is the
significance of the Table of Seats given in Schedule I.

What is the total number of the states which can join the Federation?
Schedule I limits the number to 147. A number of questions crop up by
reason of this limit fixed by the Schedule. According to official figures there
are in all 627 States in India. That means 480 States will remain outside
the Federation and can never become part of the Federation. Can this
be called an All India Federation? If it is to be an All India Federation,
why are these States excluded? What is the position of these excluded

316

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

States ? If they are not States with sovereignty why are they allowed to join
the federation ? If they are not States with sovereignty and if the sovereignty
is with the Crown, why has the Crown not transferred its sovereignty to
the Federation in respect of these territories ? What will be the ultimate
destiny of such excluded States? Will these be merged in some Indian States
or will these be merged in some Indian Provinces? I mention all this, firstly
because I want to show that this Federation is not an All India Federation
and secondly because I want to draw attention to the move of some Indian
States to get these excluded States to merge into them.

A second question may be raised. Will this Federation help to unite the
people of British India and the Indian States into one nation ?

A Federation is necessarily a composite body. Within it are units which are
smaller political communities. Above the units is a larger political community
called the Federation. Whether these different political communities will
remain merely political associations or whether they will develop a common
social fabric leading ultimately to the formation of a nation will depend upon
what form their association takes. As Bryce points out —

“When within a large political community smaller communities are found
existing, the relation of the smaller to the larger usually appears in one or other
of the two following forms. One form is that of the League, in which a number
of political bodies, be they monarchies or republics are bound together so as
to constitute for certain purposes, and especially for the purpose of common
defence, a single body. The members of such a composite body or league are not
individual men but communities. It exists only as an aggregate of communities,
and will therefore vanish so soon as the communities which compose it separate
themselves from one another. Moreover it deals with and acts upon these
communities only. With the individual citizen it has nothing to do, no right of
taxing him, or judging him, or making laws for him, for in all these matters
it is to his own community that his allegiance is due.

“In the second form, the smaller communities are mere sub-divisions of that
greater one which we call a nation. They have been created, or at any rate
they exist, for administrative purposes only. Such powers as they possess are
powers delegated by the nation, and can be overridden by its will. The nation
acts directly by its own officers, not merely on the communities, but upon every
single citizen and the nation, because it is independent of these communities,
would continue to exist were they all to disappear ”,

The former is the case where the form of Government is a confederation.
The latter is the case where there exists a unitary form of Government. A
Federal Government is between the two. It must not however be assumed
that nationalism is compatible only with a Unitary Government and

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

317

incompatible with a Federal form of Government. It must be borne in mind
that as a nation may be found in being, so also a nation, may be brought into
being. In a Federal Government there may be at the start no nation, it may
be a collection of heterogeneous communities. But it is possible to have in
the end a nation even under a Federal Government. The most striking case
is that of the United States of America. Mr. Bryce relates a story which is
both interesting as well as instructive. This is the story and I give it in his
own words. “Some years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was
occupied at its triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought
desirable to introduce among the short sentence a prayer for the whole people;
and an eminent New England Divine proposed the words, ‘O Lord, bless our
nation’. Accepted one afternoon on the spur of the moment, the sentence
was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were
raised by the laity to the word ‘nation’, as importing too definite a recognition
of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the
words, ‘O Lord, bless these United States.’ Notwithstanding this prayer to
the Lord, notwithstanding the reluctance to encourage the idea of a nation
over against the idea of the states and notwithstanding the federal form oi
Government the United States is a nation. That it is a nation in the social
sense of the word is incontrovertible.”

How has this happened in the United States ? Can we hope to see this
happen in India under the Federal Scheme ? Bryce explains how this
happened in America. He points out that in America “The Central or National
Government is not a mere league, for it does not wholly depend on the
component Communities which we call the States. It is itself a Commonwealth
as well as a Union of Commonwealths, because it claims directly the obedience
of every citizen, and acts immediately upon him through its Courts and
executive officers”. It can tax him, make law for him and judge him. In short
it is the process of Government which is responsible largely if not wholly for
moulding the Americans into a nation and that this was possible because
in the Federal Form of Government of the United States there is a direct
contact between the National Government and the individual.

Is this possible under the Indian Federal Scheme ? My answer is that
such a thing is not possible. The people in the Indian States remain the
subjects of the States. The Federal Government cannot deal with them
directly. Everything has to be done through the State. There is no contact
between the two, not even for purposes of taxation. How can a feeling
that they belong to the national Government grow in the subject of the
Indian States if they are excluded from any and every influence and are
not even made to feel the existence of the National Government ? I am
afraid this United States of India will not be more than a mere body

318

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of United States. It has no potentiality of forging a nation out of these States
and probably the framers of the Scheme have had no such intention at all.

2. Democratization of Autocracies

The other advantage of the Federal Scheme which is claimed by its
protagonists is that it brings beneath the dome of a single political edifice the
new democracies of British India and the ancient autocracies of the Indian
States and that by bringing the two under one edifice it provides contact
between democracy and autocracy and thus enables the democracy in British
India to democratize the autocracies in the Indian States. To examine this
argument and to see how much force there is behind it, it is well to note
that the Indian States and the British Indian Provinces are geographically
contiguous. There is regular intercourse between them. The people of British
India and those of the Indian States racially, linguistically and culturally form
parts of one whole. With all these contacts and with all the unity of race,
religion, language and culture British India has not been able to influence
at all the forms of government which are prevalent in the Indian States. On
the contrary while British India has advanced from autocracy to democracy,
the Indian States have remained what they were with their fixed form of
government. Unless therefore there is something special in the Act itself
which enables British India to exercise its influence on the Indian States
through the legislature and through the executive, this argument can have
no substance at all. Is there anything in the Act which gives British India
power to influence the States ? In this connection reference may be made to
section 34(i) which deals with the procedure in the legislature with respect
to the discussion and voting of the Budget estimates.

From an examination of this Section it will be clear that the estimates
relating to para (a) and para if) of sub-section (3) of section 33 cannot even
be discussed by the Federal legislature. Para (a) of sub-section (3) refers to
the salary and allowances of the Governor-General and other expenditure
relating to his office for which estimate is required to be made by Orders
in Council, and para if) relates to the sums payable to His Majesty under
this Act out of the revenue of the Federation in respect of the expenses
incurred in discharging the functions of the Crown in its relations with
the Indian States. Another section which has a bearing upon this point is
Section 38. Section 33 is a section which deals with the making of the rules
by the Federal legislature for regulating its procedure in the conduct of its
business. While this section permits the Federal legislature to make its own
rules it allows the Governor-General to make rules —

(c) or prohibiting the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any
matter connected with any Indian State, other than a matter with

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

319

respect to which the Federal legislature has power to make laws for
the State, unless the Governor- General in his discretion is satisfied
that the matter affects Federal interest or affects a British subject
and has given his consent to the matter being discussed or the
question being asked ;

( d) For prohibiting —

(i) the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any matter
connected with relations between His Majesty or the Governor-
General and any foreign State or Prince ; or

(ii) the discussion, except in relation to estimates of expenditure of,
or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with the
tribal area or the administration of any excluded area; or

(Hi) the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, the personal
conduct of the ruler of any Indian State, or of a member of the
ruling family thereof;

and the section further provides that if and so far as any rule so
made by the Governor- General is inconsistent with any rules made by
the Chamber, the rules made by the Governor- General shall prevail.

Another section having a bearing on this point is section 40. It says:
“No discussion shall take place in the Federal legislature with respect to the
conduct of any judge of the Federal Court or a High Court in the discharge
of his duties and provides that in this sub-section the reference to a High
Court shall be construed as including a reference to any court in a Federated
State which is a High Court for any of the purposes of Part 9 of this Act.”
Similar provisions are contained in that part of the Act which relates to
the constitution of the provincial legislatures. Section 84 is a counterpart of
section 38 and prevents any member of a Provincial legislature from asking
any question with regard to the personal conduct of the ruler of any Indian
State or the affairs of a State. Section 86 is a counterpart of section 40.

Now it is obvious that the two most important ways open to a Legislature
for influencing the conduct of the administration is by discussion of the
Budget and by asking questions. The discussions on the budget had its
origin in the theory which postulates that there can be no supply given to
the executive unless the grievances of the people were redressed. The slogan
of democracy has been : Redress of grievances before supplies of moneys. The
discussion on the budget is the one opportunity of placing the grievances
of a people before the executive. It is therefore a very valid privilege, as
will be seen from section 34, the legislature is prevented but from placing
the grievances of the subjects of the States before the executive on the
floor of the House. Similarly, the right to interrogate and ask questions

320

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

is also valid privilege, but that also is denied. The right to criticise on a
proper motion the conduct of the judiciary is always open to the legislature,
but that also has been excluded. It is difficult to see exactly in what way
the Federal legislature could influence the internal administration of the
Indian States. Not only the representatives of British India are prevented
from asking any question or moving any resolution with regard to the
internal administration of the States, but the same disability is imposed
upon the representatives of the States themselves who are the victims of
this maladministration.

Compare with this the influence which the Federated States are in a
position to exercise over British India.

In the first place there is no restriction on the representatives of the
Federated States in the matter of asking any question or raising any matter
in the Federal Legislature. The fact that the question or matter touches
British India and relates to internal administration of British India is not
a bar against the representatives of the Federated States from raising such
an issue.

Secondly, there is no restraint upon the representatives of the Federated
States in the matter of discussing and voting upon the financial proposals
of the Federal Government. The fact that any such proposal affects British
India only and does not affect the States can cause no legal impediment
in their way.

Thirdly, in the matter of Legislation the Representatives of the Federated
States are free to vote upon any measure brought before the Federal
Legislature. There are two lists over which the legislative authority of the
Federation extends — The Federal list and the Concurrent list. The provinces
are wholly bound by the Federal List. A Federated State is not wholly bound
by it. The provinces are wholly bound by the concurrent list. A Federated
State may not be bound at all. Yet the State represenatives have a right to
vote upon any measure falling under either of the two lists. In other words
the Federal Scheme gives the States the right to legislate for British India,
while British India gets no such right to legislate for the States except to
the extent to which the States choose to subject themselves to these two
legislative lists.

The scope of this Legislative influence by the States over British India is
by no means small nor is it inconsequential. To Confine to the Concurrent
list only, it includes 36 subjects. Among the 36 are such subjects as, Criminal
Law, Criminal and Civil Procedure, Professions, Newspapers, Books and
Printing Press etc. It is clear that these subjects are vital subjects. They
affect the liberties of the people in the Provinces. Now as the States have a
right to participate and vote upon all legislation within the Concurrent list,
the Indian States will have the right and the authority to pass legislation
affecting the rights, privileges and liberties of British Indians in the Provinces.

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

321

Further in the Legislative sphere, so far as it relates to the Concurrent
List the States have obtained authority without any obligation. They are free
to legislate and need not consider their own case in doing so because they
are not bound, by the laws they make. Their conduct can be as irresponsible
as they may choose to make it.

It is however an understatement to say that the States have only a right
to influence administration and Legislation in British India. The truth is
that the States can dominate British India because they can maintain in
office a ministry in the Federal Government although it is defeated by a
majority of the representatives of British India on a matter purely affecting
India. This is because they have a right to vote upon any motion including
a non-confidence motion irrespective of the question whether the motion
relates to a matter which affects them or not If this does not vest control
over British India in Indian States I wonder what will.

The injustice and anomaly of the States taking part in the discussions of
the internal affairs of British India while the representatives of British India
having no corresponding right to discuss the affairs of the States was sought
to be remedied by limiting the rights of the States to discuss and vote upon
such questions as did not relate to internal affairs of British India, but the
Princes and their representatives have always been against such distinction
being drawn and they insisted that on any matter on which the fate of the
Ministry depended they must have the right to decide upon the future of
that Government. The constitution has given effect to the point of view of
the Princes and set aside the point of view of British India.

This comparison shows that the States are placed by law in a position
to control the affairs of British India and by the same law British India is
disabled from exercising any influence over the States. That this is the true
state of facts must be admitted by all. In other words the Federal Scheme does
not help, indeed hinders British India from setting up in motion processes
which would result in the democratisation of the Indian States. On the
other hand it helps the Indian States to destroy democracy in British India.

3. Federation and Responsibility

Let us examine the plea of Responsibility. From the stand-point of British
India it is of more decisive importance than the two other pleas and must
be scrutinized more carefully.

It cannot be denied that the Federation has some degree of responsibility.
The question is what is the degree of that responsibility and whether within
its sphere it is a responsibility which can be called real.

Let us ask, how much responsibility is there in this Federation? To be
able to answer this question, you should read sections 9 and 11 together,

322

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

By reading them together you will get an idea of the extent of this
responsibility. According to these two sections the field of Governmental
Authority is divided into two categories. In one category are put four
subjects (1) Defence, (2) Ecclesiastical affairs, (3) External affairs, and
(4) the Administration of Tribal Areas. The rest of the subjects within the
executive authority of the Federation are put in another and a separate
category. The executive authority for both these categories is vested in the
Governor-General. But a distinction is made between them in the matter of
Governmental Authority. The Governmental Authority in respect of the four
subjects falling in the first category is under the Act the Governor- General
in his discretion. The Governmental Authority in respect of the rest of the
subjects put in the second category is under the Act, the Governor-General
acting on the advice of the Minister. In the case of the first four subjects
the Government is not responsible to the Legislature, because the Governor-
General in whom the Governmental Authority in respect of these four
subjects is vested is not removable by the legislature. In the case of the rest
of the subjects the Government is responsible to the Legislature, because
the ministers on whose advice the Governmental Authority is exercisable
are removable by the Legislature. The responsiblity in the Federal scheme
is therefore a case of limited responsibility. The responsibility does not
extend to Defence and Foreign Affairs which after all are the most important
subjects from social, political and financial point of view. The scheme has
a close resemblance to dyarchy with the division of subjects into Reserved
and Transferred such as was the basis of the Montagu- Chelmsford Reforms,
which was embodied in the Provincial Constitution under the Government
of India Act of 1919. The scheme of resposibility in the Federal Constitution
under the Act of 1935 is an exact replica of the scheme of responsibility in
the Provincial Constitution under the Act of 1919.

Is this responsibility real ? My answer is in the negative. I will give you
my reasons. Firstly the field of responsibility besides being limited is not a
free field of activity for ministers. To realize how fettered this limited field
of responsibility is, we must note certain restraints which have been imposed
upon the powers of the Ministers when acting in the field of responsibility.

The first set of restraints imposed upon the authority of the Ministers
when acting in the field of responsibility arises from what are called the
special responsibilities of the Governor-General.

There exist another set of restraints on the authority of the Ministers while
exercising the Governmental Authority in respect of transferred subjects. To
understand this you must understand one special feature of this Federal
constitution. The constitution classifies subjects from the stand-point of

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

323

Governmental Authority and that this classification has resulted in that
division of subjects which for brevity’s sake may be designated as Transferred
and Reserved. The Constitution does not stop here. It goes further and
proceeds to divide the category of Transferred subjects into two classes.
(1) subjects over which the Ministers’ Governmental Authority carries with it
administrative control and (2) subjects over which the Governmental Authority
of Ministers does not carry with it administrative control. As an illustration
of this classification may be mentioned the case of Railways. Railways are
a transferred subject. The Governmental Authority of the Ministers extends
to Railways. But the Ministers have no right to exercise any administrative
control over the Railways. The administrative control over Railways is vested
in what is called the Railway Authority. The distinction between Governmental
Authority with Administrative Control and Governmental Authority without
administrative control is not a distinction without difference. On the other
hand the difference between the two positions is very real. That difference
is made clear in sub-clause (2) of section 181 in the matter of Railways.
That distinction is the distinction between authority to lay down a policy
and competency to act. It is for those who plead for this Federation to say
whether there is reality of responsibility in a Scheme of Government where
there is a divorce between competence to act and authority to lay down policy.

Two things are clear in regard to this Responsibility in the Federal
Scheme. First is that this responsibility is limited in its ambit. Secondly it
is not real because it is fettered by the restraints arising from the special
responsibilities of the Governor-General and from the withdrawal from the
Ministers Governmental Authority of their competence to act in certain
subjects such as the Railways, although they are Transferred subjects.

I have stated that the system of responsibility in the Federal Scheme
resembles the system of dyarchy introduced into the provinces under the
Act of 1919. But if the Scheme of responsibility in the Federation was
compared with the system of dyarchy introduced into the Provinces it will
be found that the former is designed to yield less responsibility than the
latter. There are two things introduced in the Federal Scheme which were
not to be found in the dyarchy in the Provinces and there existed one thing
in the dyarchy which is absent in the Federation. The presence of the two
and the absence of one makes this dyarchy in the Federation worse than
the dyarchy in the Provinces.

Of the two things that are new in the Federal Scheme one is the
principle of special responsibilities of the Governor- General in respect of
the Transferred field and the other is the separation between Governmental
Authority from administrative control in respect of matters falling within
the Transferred field. These two are new things and did not exist in the
dyarchical constitution in the provinces.

324

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

It may be said that the special responsibilities of the Governor-General
is simply another name for the Veto power, that is the power to overrule
the Ministers and that even in the English Constitution the King has
such a Veto power. On the face of it, this view of special responsibilities
of the Governor- General appears to be correct. But in reality it involves a
misconception of the conditions and circumstances under which the King’s
Veto power can be exercised.

To my knowledge no one has explained the relationship of the King and
his Ministers in a system of responsible Government better than Macaulay.
To use his language —

“In England the King cannot exercise his Veto power unless there is some
Minister to take responsibility for the King’s act. If there is no Minister to take
responsibility the King must yield, fight, or abdicate.” The Governor-General
stands in a different position. He need not yield. He can act even if there is
no Minister to take responsibility for his act. That is the difference between
the King’s Veto and the Veto of the Governor-General. What is however more
important to note is that this Veto power exists in respect of the Transferred
field. In the dyarchical constitution in the Provinces the Transferred field was
not subject to such a Veto power of the Governor. In other words there were
no special responsibilities of the Governor. If the Governor-General can overrule
Ministers even in the Transferred field, question is what substance is there in
Ministerial responsibility. I see very little.

The second thing which is new is the separation between Governmental
Authority and administrative control. Such a provision did not exist in the
dyarchical constitution in the Provinces. In the dyarchical constitution of the
Provinces when a subject was transferred both Governmental Authority as well
as Administrative control was transferred to the Minister. You will ask yourself
what substance is there in Ministerial responsibility if a Minister can only issue
directions and cannot control the action taken thereunder ? I see very little.

The provision which existed in the dyarchical constitution of the Provinces
and which has been omitted from the Federal Constitution relates to the
financing of the Reserved subjects. Section 72D of the old Act of 1919 and
sections 33 and 34 of the present Act may be usefully compared in this
connection. Section 72D, sub-section ( 2 ) reads as follows:

“The estimates of annual expenditure and revenue of the Province shall
be laid in the form of a statement before the Council in each year, and
the proposals of the local Government for the appropriation of provincial
revenues and other moneys in any year shall be submitted to the vote of
the Council in the form of demands for grants. The Council may assent,
or refuse its assent, to a demand, or may reduce the amount therein
referred to, either by a reduction of any of the items of expenditure

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

325

of which the grant is composed.” Compare with this section 34 of the present
Act of 1935 ; sub-section ( 1 ) of section 34 reads as follows:

“So much of the estimates of expenditure as relates to expenditure charged
upon the revenues of the Federation shall not be submitted to the vote of the
Legislature, but nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as preventing
the discussion in either chamber of the Legislature of any of these estimates
other than estimates relating to expenditure referred to in paragraph (a) or
paragraph (/) of sub-section (3) of section 33.”

According to section 33 expenditure charged on the revenues of the
Federation includes expenditure on the reserved subjects. On a comparison
between the provisions of the two Acts, it is clear that under the old Act no
distinctions were made by section 72D between Transferred and Reserved
subjects, so far as the powers of the Legislature in regard to the granting
of supply were concerned and the expenditure on Reserved subjects was not
only open to discussion but was also subject to the vote of the Legislature.
Under the provisions of section 34, of the new Act the Federal Legislature can
only discuss the expenditure on the reserved subjects but cannot vote upon
it. This is a very important distinction. Under the old constitution even the
reserved subjects were amenable to the financial powers of the Legislature.
Under the present constitution they arc independent of the financial powers
of the Federal Legislature. It is true that in the provincial Constitution the
vote of the Legislature with regard to expenditure on reserved subjects was
not final. That under a proviso to section 72D the Governor was given the
power “in relation to any such demand to act as if it had been assented
to, notwithstanding the withholding of such assent or the reduction of the
amount (by the Legislature) if the demand relates to reserved subject, and
the Governor certifies that the expenditure provided for by the demand is
essential to the discharge of his responsibility for the subject”. It is also true
that in the Government of India Act, 1935 the amount of expenditure on
reserved subjects is fixed to 42 crores. But the same difference exists, namely
that under the old constitution the reserved subjects were amenable to the
financial control of the Legislature while in the new constitution they are
not. This difference is not a small difference. The power to grant supplies is
the most effective mode of enforcing the responsibility of the executive. The
power of certification might have deprived the Legislature of control of the
reserved subjects. But it did not altogether destroy its influence. Under the
present constitution the Legislature has not only no control over reserved
subjects but also it cannot have any influence over them. There can therefore
be no doubt that there was more responsibility in the dyarchy in the old
Provincial Constitution than there is in this dyarchy in the Federation.

The fact that the Executive is not responsible to the Legislature is
simply another way of stating that in the Federal Scheme the Executive

326

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

is supreme. This supremacy of the Executive may be maintained in various
ways. It may be maintained by curtailing the powers of the Legislature or it
may be maintained by planning the composition of the Legislature in such a
way that the Legislature will always be at the beck and call of the Executive.

The Federal Scheme adopts both these means. In the first place, it limits
the powers of the Federal Legislature. I have already described how greatly
the Federal Scheme curtails the financial powers of the Federal Legislature.
The Federal Legislature has no right to refuse supplies to any expenditure
which is declared to be a charge on the revenues.

The Federal Scheme also curtails the Legislative powers of the Federal
Legislature. These restraints are specified in section 108 which reads as
follows :

“108. (1) Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give
his previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in, either
Chamber of the Federal Legislature, any Bill or amendment which —

(a) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of
Parliament extending to British India ; or

( b ) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any Governor-General’s or
Governor’s Act, or any ordinance promulgated in his discretion by
the Governor-General or a Governor; or

(c) affects matters as respects which the Governor-General is, by or
under this Act, required to act in his discretion; or

( d ) repeals, amends or affects any Act relating to any police force ; or

(e) affects the procedure for criminal proceedings in which European
British subjects are concerned ; or

(/) subjects-persons not resident in British India to greater taxation
than persons resident in British India or subjects companies not
wholly controlled and managed in British India to greater taxation
than companies wholly controlled and managed therein ; or

( g ) affects the grant of relief from any Federal tax on income in respect
of income taxed or taxable in the United Kingdom.

(2) Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give his
previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in a Chamber
of a Provincial Legislature any Bill or amendment which —

(a) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of
Parliament extending to British India ; or

( b ) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any Governor-General’s Act, or
any ordinance promulgated in his discretion by the Governor-General;
or

(c) affects matters as respects which the Governor-General is by or
under this Act, required to act in his discretion ; or

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

327

(i d ) affects the procedure for criminal proceedings in which European
British subjects are concerned ;

and unless the Governor of Province in his discretion thinks fit to give his
previous sanction, there shall not be introduced or moved any Bill or amendment
which —

(i) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any Governor’s Act, or any
ordinance promulgated in his discretion by the Governor; or

(ii) repeals, amends or affects any Act relating to any police force.

(3) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any other provision in
this Act which requires the previous sanction of the Governor-General or of
a Governor to the introduction of any Bill or the moving of any amendment.”

The Federal Scheme does not stop with merely curtailing the power of
the Federal Legislature as a means of maintaining the supremacy of the
Executive. Under it the composition of the Federal Legislature is so arranged
that the Legislature will always be at the beck and call of the Executive. In
this connection it is necessary to bear in mind what the actual composition
of the Federal Legislature is. As has already been pointed out there are 375
members in the Legislative Assembly and of them 125 have been assigned
to the Indian States and 250 to British India. In the Council of State the
total is 260 and of them 104 are assigned to the States and 156 are alloted
to British India. The seals assigned to the States are to be filled by the
Princes by nomination. The scats assigned to British India are to be filled
by election. The Federal Legislature is therefore an heterogeneous legislature
partly elected and partly nominated.

The first question to be considered is how the Princes’ nominees in the
Federal Legislature will behave. Will they be independent of the Federal
Executive or will they be subservient to it ? It is difficult to prophesy. But
certain influences which are likely to play a part in the making of these
nominations may be noted- It is an indisputable fact that the British
Government claims what are called rights of paramountcy over the States
“Paramountcy” is an omnibus term to denote the rights which the Crown
can exercise through the Political Department of the Government of India
over the States. Among these rights is the right claimed by the Political
Department to advise the Indian Princes in the matter of making certain
appointments. It is well known that what is called “advice” is a diplomatic
term for dictation. There is no doubt that the Political Department will
claim the right to advise the Princes in the matter of filling up these places.
Should this happen, what would be the result ? The result would be this that
the Princes’ representatives would be simply another name for an official
block owing allegiance, not to the people and not even to the Princes, but to
the Political Department of the Government of India. Two things must be
further noted. First is that Paramountcy is outside the Federal Government.

328

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

That means that the Ministers, will have no right to give any advice in the
matter of the nomination of the Princes’ Representatives and the Legislature
will have no right to criticise it. They will be under the control of the
Viceroy as distinct from the Governor-General. Secondly, this official block
of the Princes is not a small block. In the Lower House a party which has
187 seats can command a majority. In the Upper Chamber a party which
has 130 seats can command a majority. In the Lower House the Princes
have 125 seats. All that they need is a group of 62 to make a majority.
In the Upper Chamber they have 104 ; all that they need is 26. All this
vast strength the Executive can command. How can such a Legislature be
independent ? The Reserved half can control the Transferred half with this
strength in its possession.

How will the representatives of British India behave ? I cannot make any
positive statement. But I like it to be borne in mind that in some States
there is no such thing as a regular budget and there is no such thing as
independent audit and accounts. It would not be difficult for the Princes to
purchase support from British India representatives. Politics is a dirty game
and British India politicians cannot all be presumed to be beyond corruption
and when purchases can be made without discovery the danger is very real.

Look at the Federal Scheme any way you like and analyze it as you may
its provisions relating to responsibility, you will see that of real responsibility
there is none.

VII

THE BANE OF THE FEDERAL SCHEME

There is no one who does not recognize that this Scheme for an All Indian
Federation is full of defects. A difference of opinion arises only when the
question is asked what shall we do about it. The answers given to this
question by prominent Indians from time to time disclose that broadly
speaking, there are two quite different attitudes to this Federation. There
is the attitude of those who think that bad as it is, we should accept the
Federation and work it so as to derive whatever good it can yield. On the
other hand, there is the attitude of those who think that certain changes
must be made in the Constitution of the Federation before it can be accepted
and worked. It is agreeable to find that both the Congress as well as the
Liberal Federation are one on this issue. Both have declared that certain
changes must be made before they will accept to work the Federation.

That this Federation is not acceptable to a large majority of the Indian
people is beyond question. The question is in what respects should we
require the Constitution to be amended ? What are the changes which we
should demand ? We may take as our starting point the resolutions passed
by the Congress and the Liberal Federation relating to this question.

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

329

The Congress at its session held at Haripura in 1938 passed the following
resolution:

“The Congress has rejected the new Constitution and declared that a
Constitution for India, which can be accepted by the people, must be based
on independence and can only be framed by the people themselves by means
of a Constituent Assembly, without interference by any foreign authority.
Adhering to this policy of rejection, the Congress has, however, permitted the
formation in provinces of Congress Ministries with a view to strengthen the
nation in its struggle for independence. In regard to the proposed Federation,
no such considerations apply even provisionally or for a period, and the
imposition of this Federation will do grave injury to India and tighten the
bonds which hold her in subjection to imperialist domination. This scheme
of Federation excludes from the sphere of responsibility vital functions of
Government.

The Congress is not opposed to the idea of Federation ; but a real
Federation must, even apart from the question of responsibility consist of free
units enjoying more or less the same measure of freedom and civil liberty,
and representation by the democratic process of election. The Indian States
participating in the Federation should approximate to the provinces in the
establishment of representative institutions and responsible Government,
civil liberties and method of election to the Federal Houses. Otherwise the
Federation as it is now contemplated, will, instead of building up Indian
unity, encourage separatist tendencies and involve the States in internal
and external conflicts.

The Congress therefore reiterates its condemnation of the proposed Federal
Scheme and calls upon the Provincial and Local Congress Committees and
the people generally, as well as the Provincial Governments and Ministries,
to prevent its inauguration. In the event of an attempt being made to impose
it, despite the declared will of the people, such an attempt must be combated
in every way and the Provincial Governments and Ministries must refuse to
co-operate with it. In case such a contingenncy arises, the All India Congress
Committee is authorised and directed to determine the line of action to be
pursued in this regard.”.

The resolution passed by the National Liberal Federation at its last session
held in Bombay was in the following terms:

“The National Liberal Federation reiterates its opinion that the Constitution,
especially as regards the Centre as embodied in the Government of India Act,
1935, is utterly unsatisfactory and in several respects retrogade. While the
National Liberal Federation accepts a federal form of Government for India
as the only natural ideal for our country, the Federation considers that vital
changes are required in the form of the Federation as laid down in the Act

330

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

especially in the direction of (a) clearing up the position of the Princes and
securing the subjects of States the right of election of States’ representatives,

(6) doing away with the safeguards regarding the monetary policy and
commercial discrimination, (c) introducing direct elections for the members
of the Federal Assembly by the Provinces and ( d ) making Constitution
sufficiently elastic so as to enable India to attain Dominion Status within
a reasonable period of time.

The National Liberal Federation considers that the present position when
there is an irresponsible Government in the Centre coupled with responsible
Governments in the Provinces is altogether untenable and earnestly urges on
Parliament to make immediate changes in the Federal part of the Constitution
so as to make it generally acceptable.

The Federation is further of opinion that these modifications are essential
for the successful working of the Federal Constitution.”

Should these changes demanded by the Congress or by the Liberal
Federation suffice to alter the present attitude of rejection into one of
acceptance of Federation? Speaking for myself I have no hesitation in saying
that the changes asked for in these Resolutions even if they are made will not
convert me. To my mind whether the British Parliament is prepared to alter
this, that or the other detail of the Federal Scheme immediately is a very
unimportant consideration. In the view I take of the matter the objections
to the Federal Scheme will not be removed in the least even if the British
Parliament will be ready to grant every one of the demands contained in
these Resolutions. To me the fundamental question is whether this Federal
Scheme is capable of so evolving that in the end India will reach her goal
and it is from this point of view that I want you and every one interested
to examine the Federal Scheme.

What is the goal of India’s political evolution? There does not seem to
any fixity or definiteness about it. The Congress which claims to voice the
political aspirations of the Indian people began with good Government as
its goal. It moved from good Government to Self-Government or Responsible
Government ; from Responsible Government to Dominion Status and from
Dominion Status it advanced to Independence. There the Congress stopped
for some time in a mood of self-examination. Then there was period of
vaccilation. Now it seems to have come back to Dominion Status and we
shall not be very wrong if we take that to be the goal of India according to
the Congress. Now the question is, can the Federal Scheme blossom in due
course into Dominion Status ?

Many Indians seem to think that the question of Dominion Status is
a matter of gift which lies in the hands of the British Parliament. If the
British Parliament were to make up its mind to grant it, nothing can stand

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

331

in the way. They contend that if India has no hope of Dominion Status, it
is because the British Parliament refused to grant it. In support of their
opinion they refer to the refusal of The British Parliament to add a Preamble
to the Act of 1935 declaring Dominion Status as the goal for India.

It must be granted that the demand for such a preamble was a very
proper one. In 1929 Lord Irwin with the consent of all the political parties
in the British Parliament declared that the goal of India’s political evolution
was Dominion Status. What the Indians therefore wanted was not new. It
had already been so stated authoritatively by the Governor-General and
Viceroy, but the British Government refused to put such a preamble. The
refusal was therefore a strange piece of conduct on the part of the British
Government. But the grounds urged in support of the refusal were stranger
still. The British Government sought to justify their conduct in not having
a preamble in those terms on various grounds.

The first ground was that a preamble was a futility and that it had no
operative force, but that argument was easily met. All Acts of Parliament
have had Preambles expressing the purpose and the intention of Parliament.
It is true that it has no legal effect, but all the same Courts have not held
that a preamble is a futile thing. On the other hand, wherever there is any
doubt with regard to the wording of a section, Courts have always resorted to
the preamble as a key to understand the purpose of the enactment and made
use of it for resolving any doubtful construction. Driven from this position,
the British Government took another position and that was to repeal the Act
of 1919 but to retain the Preamble to that Act. This again is a very queer
thing. In the first place if the Preamble is a futility, there is no necessity
to save the Preamble enacted as part of the Act of 1919. Secondly if the
Preamble to the Act of 1919 was a necessity, it should have been enacted
afresh as a part of this Act of 1935, which the British Government would
not do. Instead it preferred to present the strange spectacle of the head
separated from the trunk. The head is now to be found in the repealed Act
of 1919 and the trunk is to be found in the present enactment of 1935. In
the third place, what the Indian people wanted was a preamble promising
Dominion Status and that is what the declaration of Lord Irwin contained.
The preamble to the Act of 1919 speaks only of Responsible Government.
It does not speak of Dominion Status and the retention of the Preamble to
the Act of 1919 was to say the least the silliest business possible.

Why did the British Parliament refuse to enact a Preamble defining
Dominion Status as the goal ? Why did the British Parliament run from
pillar to post rather than grant the demand ? The explanation offered is
of course the usual one namely, the perfidy of the Albion ! My own view
is different. The British Parliament did not promise Dominion Status by

332

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

enacting a preamble because it realized that it would be beyond its power to
fulfil such a promise. What the British Parliament lacked was not honesty.
Indeed it was its honesty which led it to refuse to enact such a preamble
because it knew that it could not give effect to such a preamble. What it
lacked was courage to tell the Indians that the Federal Scheme left no way
for Dominion Status.

Why is Dominion Status impossible under the Federal Scheme? It is
impossible because it is not possible to have Responsible Government. It
must be borne in mind that to reach Dominion Status, India must first attain
Responsible Government. To attain Responsible Government the subjects
which are reserved must become transferred. That is the first stage in the
process of evolution towards Dominion Status.

Some of you will want to know the reasons why I say that the reserved
subjects cannot become transferred. They are sure to recall that there were
Reserved subjects in the Provincial Scheme as they are in the Federal
Scheme and will ask that if the reserved subjects have become transferred
in the course of say 20 years what difficulty can there be in the similar
things happening in the Federation. As the question is important, I proceed
to give my reason. In the first place, the analogy of the Provinces is false.
It is important to note why the analogy is false. It is false because in the
Provincial Scheme the distinction between the reserved and the transferred
subjects was based upon the requirements of administrative efficiency. That
the distinction between the reserved and the transferred subjects in the
Federal Scheme is based upon legal necessity and not upon administrative
efficiency needs no proof. One of the reasons why the Simon Commission did
not recommend dyarchy at the Centre was that it felt that administratively
it was not possible to divide subjects into two water-tight compartments, one
reserved and the other transferred, without affecting the efficiency of all ;
and the Government of India’s despatch on the Simon Commission entirely
agreed with the view. The division, therefore, is not administrative in its
basis. It is the result of a legal necessity. This is a fundamental distinction
and ought never to be lost sight of.

How does this legal necessity arise? I say the legal necessity for treating
certain subjects as reserved arises because of the Indian States. I go further
and say that there would be necessity for treating certain subjects as
reserved if the Federation was confined to the British India Provinces only.
The reservation of certain subjects is a direct consequence of the entry of
the Indian States into the Federation.

What is it, in the position of the Indian States which compels certain
subjects to be treated as reserved ? To be able to answer this question I
must first draw your attention to section 180 of the Government of India
Act. Section 180 says —

“Any contact made before the commencement of Part III of this

Act by or on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council solely in

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

333

connection with the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations
with Indian States, shall, as from the commencement of Part III of this Act.
have effect as if it had been made on behalf of His Majesty and references
in any such contract to the Secretary of State in Council shall be construed
accordingly.”

This section gives statutory form to the contention put forward by
the Princes before the Butler Committee and accepted by them, that the
treaties of the Indian States were with the Crown of England as such and
not with the Government of India.

The next step is to note what follows from this theory. Now what follows
from this theory is very crucial, but has been unfortunately allowed to
pass without due care and attention. The Princes have contended that as
treaty relations of the Indian States are with the Crown of England, the
duty and responsibility of fulfilling the obligations arising under those
treaties lay solely upon the Crown of England and the Crown of England
must at all times maintain itself in a position to fulfil those obligations.

What is the obligation which the treaties with the Princes impose upon
the Crown of England ? The Principle of obligation imposed upon the Crown
of England and which the Crown of England has undertaken by the treaties
is to protect the Princes from internal commotion and external aggression.

How can the Crown fulfil this obligation ? The only way, it is argued,
that the Crown can fulfil this obligation is to reserve external affairs and
the Army under its exclusive control.

You can now understand why I say that the necessity of reserved
subjects is due to a legal necessity. That legal necessity flows from the
treaty obligations of the Crown and so long as the basis of the treaty
relations remains what Section 180 says it is, the reserved subjects cannot
become transferred subjects. And as the reserved subjects cannot become
transferred, there is no scope even for Responsible Government much less
for Dominion Status.

From the analysis I have made of the Constitution, from the stand-
point of the ultimate goal, few, I believe, will have any hesitation to say
that this Constitution is a fixed and rigid constitution. It cannot change
and therefore it cannot progress. It is a constitution which is striken at
the very base and it is for the people of India to consider whether they
will accept it.

I have examined the Constitution from the stand-point of our goal at
so considerable a length that I feel I owe you an apology for tiring you.
But the attitude of some people towards this question must be my excuse

334

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

for entering into this subject at such great length. I realize that no Constitution
is a perfect constitution. Imperfections there are bound to be. But I think a
distinction must be drawn between imperfections and inherent and congenital
deficiencies. Imperfections can be removed. But congenital deficiencies cannot
be supplied. The demands made in the resolutions of the Congress or of
the Liberal Federation, even if granted, will remove the imperfections. But
will they remove the deficiencies ? I would not mind the imperfections if I
was assured that there are no deficiencies. The greatest deficiency in the
Constitution is that it will not lead to Dominion Status. Neither the Congress
nor the Liberal Federation seems to be aware that this deficiency exists. Their
demands have no relation to the goal of India’s political evolution. They do
not even mention it. It is surprising that Congressmen should have become
so enamoured of the prospect of seizing political power that their demands
against the British Government should not even contain a declaration from
the British Government in this behalf. But if Congress forget, the people
of India cannot and should not. To do so would be fatal. It would be fatal
as much for an individual as for a people to forget that a stage on the way
is not the home and to follow the way without knowing whether it leads
homewards or not is to misdirect one-self and fall into a ditch.

You must not misunderstand me. I am not an impatient idealist. I am
not condemning the gradualist, who is prepared to wait and take thing by
instalments, although the gradualist, who has a valid claim for a rupee,
demands an anna and proclaims a great victory when he gets a pie, must
become an object of pity. All I want is that if circumstances force us to be
gradualists we must not fail to be realists. Before accepting an instalment
we should examine it carefully and satisfy ourselves that it contains an
acknowledgement of the whole claim. Otherwise, as often happens what is
good for the moment turns out to be the enemy of the better.

Some of you will ask, how can India secure Dominion Status. My answer
is India will get Dominion Status only if the Princes who join the Federation,
consent to its being granted. If the Princes object to the grant of Dominion
Status to India, then India cannot get Dominion Status. The Federation
places the strings of India’s political evolution in the hands of the Princes.
The destiny of India will be controlled by the Princes.

This view of the future will strike as very strange to a great many of
you. We are all saturated with Dicey’s dictum regarding the Sovereignty
of Parliament. We all have learned from him that Parliament is supreme,
that it is so supreme that it can do anything except make man a woman
and woman a man. It would not be unnatural if some of you ask how can
the Princes stand in the way when the British Parliament is supreme. It
will take some effort on your part to accept the proposition that the British
Parliament has no supremacy over the Indian Federation. Its authority to
change the Federal Constitution now embodied in the government of India
Act is strictly limited.

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

335

Indian politicians have expressed their sense of sorrow and resentment
over the fact that the Indian Legislatures have not been given by the Act
any constituent powers.

Under the Government of India Act neither the Federal Legislature, nor
the Provincial Legislature have any powers of altering or amending the
constitution. The only thing, which the Act by virtue of section 308 does, is to
permit the Federal Legislature and Provincial Legislature to pass a resolution
recommending any change in the constitution, and make it obligatory upon
the Secretary of State to place it before both Houses of Parliament. This
is contrary to the provisions contained in the Constitutions of the United
States, Australia, the German Federation and Switzerland. There is no reason
why constituent power should not have been given within certain defined
limits to the Legislatures in India when they were fully representative of
all sections and of all interests. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the
Indian Legislatures cannot make any changes in constitution, not even in
the franchise, much less in making the reserved subjects transferred. The
only authority which can change the Constitution is of course the British
Parliament. But very few seem to be aware of the fact that even Parliament
has no powers to alter the Federal Constitution. This, however, is the truth
and the sooner we all realize it the better.

From this point of view the importance of Schedule II cannot be
overestimated. I am sorry, it has not received the attention which it
deserves. Schedule II is not only a charter but is also a chart along which
the Constitution can move. The whole Schedule is worth careful study.
What does Schedule II say ? Schedule II says that certain provisions of the
Government of India Act may be amended by Parliament and that certain
other provisions of the Act shall not be amended by Parliament. That is
simply another way of saying that Parliament is not supreme and that its
right to alter the Constitution is limited.

What would happen if Parliament did amend those provisions of the Act
which Schedule II says shall not be amended by Parliament ? The answer,
which Schedule II gives, is that such an Act will have the effect of ‘affecting’
the accession of the States to the Federation, which means it will have the
effect of destroying the binding character of the Instrument of Accession. In
other words, if Parliament amended any of the provisions of the Act, which
Schedule II says shall not be amended, the Princes would get the right to
secede from the Federation. I am aware that some eminent lawyers have
taken a different view. They hold that the Princes, once they come into the
Federation, cannot go out of it. I have mentioned my view for what it is
worth and I will say that my view is not altogether baseless.

At any rate the Solicitor-General and Secretary of State gave the
same interpretation, as I am giving, in the House of Commons, when the
Government of India Bill was being discussed.

336

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The Solicitor-General said:

“The States will not agree to federate in a structure which within
limits, is definite and certain and obviously we could not completely alter
the structure afterwards. The purpose of this clause is to lay down those
matters which can be altered without being regarded as fundamental or as

impinging on the Instrument of Accession.” “If the structure were to

be altered in fundamental respects, of course the States would clearly have
the right to say “This is not the Federation to which we have acceded.”

The Secretary of State said :

“If you amend the parts of the Bill which affect the States, obviously
you would be altering the conditions on which they have acceded and
that would certainly create a situation in which the Princes could rightly
claim that their Instrument of Accession had been altered. It certainly
means that we cannot amend any part of the Bill which affects what is
virtually the treaties under which the Princes come in. If we make a
change in the Bill as to strike at the basis of their Instrument of Accession
then obviously, the agreement has been broken between the Princes and
Parliament and the Princes are free.”

“It will be accepted by every one that under the general scheme of the
Bill the States, when they are asked to federate are entitled to know with
certainty certain aspects at any rate, of the Federation to which they are
to accede. It would be an absurd position if having said to a State this
month, “Will you accede to a Federation,” it was possible next month for
this House to alter in some fundamental respects the provisions of the
Federation to which the State was held to have acceded. Therefore, some
schedule of this kind is necessary. It is a sorting out of the various parts
of the Bill which should be capable of amendment without in any sense
altering from the point of view of the States the constitutional machinery
to which they have acceded. The scheme of the Schedule is to set out the
provisions of the Act, the amendment whereof is not to affect the validity
of the Instrument of Accession of a State.”

“One sees set out those parts of the Bill the amendment of which is not
to affect the validity of the Instrument of Accession of a State, and on the
opposite side there are set out those subjects the amendment of which,
would affect the validity of accession. In drawing up a schedule of this
kind one has to proceed with great care in defining what are the legitimate
matters on which the Rulers of a State are entitled to ask that there shall
be no amendment without their consent. Of course there will be border-line
cases. There could be minor amendments, which would not really make any
great difference to the existing position, and it would be very unreasonable

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

337

if the States took objection to such amendments and said, “We are going to
stand on our rights on this point as affecting the validity of our Instrument
of Accession.” It is right that any matter which really affects what I may call
the general balance of powers, the questions of the reservation of subjects of
executive control and of matters which can be dealt with by the Governor-
General in his discretion, matters which are vital to the architecture of the
Federation to which the States are asked to accede, should not be amended
without their assent.

“The whole area of the special powers vested in the Governor-General is one
of the essential features of the Federation. That is one part where the States are
entitled to say ‘That is a change’ or ‘That is altered’. But this does not in any
way check for all time the development of India. These are to be the subject-
matter of negotiations with the States, because, in effect, they will produce a
Federation of a different kind from that to which the State has acceded.”

Therefore to the question what would happen if Parliament did make
such changes which by virtue of Schedule II are treated as changes which
will affect the Instrument of Accession the answer is that the Princes will
get a right to walk out of the Federation. In other words, the consequence
of any such change would be to break up the Federation.

What are the changes which cannot be made without affecting the
Instrument of Accession ? I will draw your attention to some of the provisions
which Schedule II says cannot be amended by Parliament without affecting
the Instrument of Accession. According to Schedule II no changes in the
Constitution can be made which relate to (1) the exercise by the Governor-
General of the executive authority of the Federation ; (2) the definition of
the functions of the Governor- General ; (3) the executive authority of the
Federation ; (4) the functions of the Council of Ministers and the choosing
and summoning of ministers and their tenure of office ; (5) the power of the
Governor-General to decide whether he is entitled to act in his discretion or
exercise his individual judgment ; (6) the functions of the Governor-General
with respect to external affairs and defence ; (7) the special responsibilities
of the Governor- General relating to the peace and tranquility of India or any
part thereof ; (8) the financial stability and credit of the Federal Government;

(9) the rights of the Indian States and the rights and dignity of their Rulers;

(10) the discharge of his functions by or under the Act in his discretion or
in the exercise of his individual judgment ; (11) His Majesty’s Instrument
of Instructions to the Governor-General ; and (12) the superintendence of
the Secretary of State in the making of the rules for the Governor-General
in his discretion for the transaction of and the securing of transmission to
him of information with respect to, the business of the Federal Government.

338

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Schedule II is a very extensive collection of constitutional don’ts. I have
given just a few of them. They will however be sufficient to show how limited
is the authority of Parliament to make changes in the Constitution.

Why is the authority of Parliament limited ? To understand this it is
necessary to note the exact limits of the authority of Parliament. According
to law the authority of the Parliament to legislate extends only to countries
which are the Dominions of the King. The States did not form part of the
Dominions of the King and none of them not even the finest of them was
subject to the legislative authority of Parliament. The Government of India
Act makes no change in this status of the States. The States remain foreign
territories inspite of the Federation, and as they were before Federation.
This is the most extraordinary state about the Indian Federation, namely
that the different units are as between themselves foreign states. As the
Act does not make the States Dominions of the King, Parliament gets no
right to legislate about them. Parliament derives its authority over the
States from the Instrument of Accession. That being so, the authority of
Parliament cannot but be limited to what is transferred to it by the States
through their instruments. To use the language of the Privy Council itself,
as the stream can rise no higher than its source, similarly, Parliament
cannot have powers over the States greater than those given to them by
the Instrument of Accession. This explains why the authority of Parliament
to amend the Constitution is limited.

The analysis made so far shows that the authority of Parliament 10
change is limited by the Instrument of Accession and that for any excess
of authority, there must be prior consent given by the Princes. As a legal
effect of the provisions of the Act it may not be shocking. But consider the
fact that the provisions in regard to which Parliament has no power to
change include those that relate to the transposition of such subjects as
Defence and External affairs from the category of Reserved to that of the
Transferred and that it will not have that power unless the Princes consent
expressly to confer that authority on Parliament and permit it to do so. You
will be in a position to realize how grave are going to be the consequences
of this Federation. The establishment of the Federation means that the
mastery has gone from the hands of Parliament into the hands of Princes.
This Federation makes the Princes the arbiters of destiny. Without their
consent India cannot politically advance.

Other consequences of this Federation might also be noted. I will just
refer to one. It is that this federation, if accepted will weaken the position
of British Indians in their struggle for change. Hitherto, in the struggle
between the Indian people and the British Parliament the latter was
always the weaker party. It had nothing to oppose the right of the people
to change except its will. After the Federation the position is bound to be
reversed. The Indian people would be in a weaker position and Parliament

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

339

would be in a stronger position. After the Federation, Parliament would be in
a position to say that it is willing to grant the demand for change but that
its authority to change is limited and that before making any demand for
change. Indians should obtain the consent of the Princes. There is nothing
to prevent Parliament from taking this stand.

What reply would Indians be able to give if they once accept the Federation
and thereby admit the implications underlying it ?

VIII

THE FATALITY OF FEDERATION

What shall we do with the Indian States ? That is a question that is
often asked. Some people with Republican faith in them desire their total
abolition. Those who do not care for forms of Government will reject this
view. But even they must abide by the consideration that what works best
is best. Can the Indian States be said to work best ? I do not know that
there is anybody, who will be prepared to give an affirmative answer, at
any rate an affirmative answer which will apply to all States. The internal
administration of the States is a bye-word for mismanagement and mal-
administration. Very few States will escape this charge.

The people are always asking as to why there should be this mismanagement
and maladministration in the States. The usual answer is that it is the
consequence of Personal Rule. Everywhere the demand made is that Personal
Rule should be replaced by Popular Government. I have grave doubts about
the efficacy of this demand. I do not think that in a large majority of cases
the substitution of Popular Government will be any cure for the ills of the
State subjects. For, I am sure that the evils arise as much from the misrule
of the Ruler as they arise from want of resources. Few have any idea as to
how scanty are the resources of the Indian States.

Let me give you a few facts. Out of the total of 627 States there are
only ten with an annual revenue above 1 crore. Of these ten, five have just
about a crore, three have between 2 and 2 1 A crores. One has just about 3 %
crores and only one has a revenue just about 8 crores. There are nine with a
revenue ranging between 1 crore and 50 lakhs. About twelve have a revenue
ranging between 50 to 25 lakhs. Thirty have a revenue varying between
25 lakhs and 10 lakhs. The rest of the 566 have an annual revenue which
is less than 10 lakhs. This does not, however, give an idea of how small
are some of the States which fall below 10 lakhs. A few illustrations may
therefore be given. Among these 565 States there is one with a revenue of
Rs. 500 and a population of 206 souls. Another with a revenue of Rs. 165
and a population of 125 : another with a revenue of Rs. 136 and a population
of 239, another with a revenue of 128 and a population of 147 and another

340

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

with a revenue of Rs. 80 and a population of 27. Each one of these is an
Autonomous State, even the one with a revenue of Rs. 80 and a population
of 27 !

The Autonomy of these States means that each one must take upon itself
the responsibility to supply to its subjects all the services which relate to
matters falling under law and order such as revenue, executive and judicial
and all the services which affect public welfare such as education, sanitation,
roads etc. We in Bombay with our 12 crores of revenue are finding it difficult
to maintain a civilized standard of administration. Other Provinces with
equally large revenue are finding the same difficulty. How then can these
small tiny states with a revenue of few hundreds and a population of few
thousands cater to any of the wants which a civilized man must have his
Government satisfy in full measure ? With the best of motives and given
an ideal Prince the task is hopeless.

The only way out is to reorganize the whole area occupied by the Indian
States. The proper solution would be to fix an area of a certain size and of
certain revenue and to constitute it into a New Province and to pension off
the rulers now holding any territory in that area. Only such States should
be retained in whose case by measure of area and revenue it can be said
that they by reason of their resources are in a position to provide a decent
standard of administration. Those which cannot satisfy the test must go.
There is no other way. This is not merely what might be done. I say, to do
this is our duty and a sacred duty.

I know some will think of the hereditary right of the Prince to rule over
his territory. But I ask, what is more important, the right of the Prince
or the welfare of the people ? I am sure that even the best friends of the
States will not say that the rights of the Prince are more important than
the welfare of the people. Which should give way, if the two are in conflict ?
There again, I am sure that even the best friends of the States will not say
that the welfare of the people should be sacrificed for the sake of maintaining
the rights of the Prince.

The question of the reorganization of the Indian States is not a political
question. As I look at it, is a purely administrative question. It is also an
inevitable question. Because, not to tackle it is to condemn the people of
the States — and there are millions of them — perpetually to a life of misery
and security. The way I suggest is not a revolutionary way. To pension off
a Prince and to annex his territory is a legal way and can fall under the
principles with which we are familiar under the Land Acquisition Act which
allows private rights and properties to be acquired for public purposes.

Unfortunately, the question of the Indian States has not been tackled
from this point of view so far. The question that I want to place before

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

341

you is, and it is a very important question, “Will it be open to you to tackle
this question after the Federation is established ?” I say no. You will perhaps
ask why. How does this conclusion follow ?

I have already pointed out that with regard to the entry into the Federation,
the Provinces and the States stand on a different footing. The Provinces have
no choice. They must agree to be the units of the Federation. The States
have a choice. They may join the Federation or they may refuse to join the
Federation. That is so from the standpoint of the Provinces and from the
standpoint of the States. What is the position from the standpoint of the
Federation ? Has the Federation any choice in the matter of the admission of
the States ? Can the Federation refuse to admit a State into the Federation ?
The answer is no. The Federation has no right to refuse. The State has a
right to enter the Federation. But the Federation has no right to refuse
admission at any rate for the first 20 years. That is the position. Now what
does the admission of a State into the Federation mean? In my view the
admission of a State into the Federation means recognition of the sovereign
status of the State. Recognition of its sovereign status means the recognition
of its indestructibility which means its right to the integrity of its territory
and to guaranteeing of its powers of internal administration. This would
apply even to the State with a population of 27 and revenue of Rs. 80. These
being the implications of the admission of a State in the Federation, I am
perfectly justified in suggesting that the territorial reorganisation of the
Indian States will not be possible after the establishment of the Federation
and the people of the Indian States will be forever doomed to misrule and
mal-administration.

Can British India do anything in the matter now ? I think British India
is not in a position to do anything in the matter. If British India could have
secured Responsible Government for itself, it might have been in a position
to dictate which State should be admitted and on what terms. It would
have been in a position to make the reorganization of the States territory
into tolerably big units as a condition precedent for their entry into the
Federation. Unfortunately British India has no Responsible Government.
Indeed its right to Responsible Government at the Centre is denied and is
made dependent upon the entry of the States. “No States, no responsibility”
has now become the fate of British India. That being the position of British
India, British India is not in a position to make terms with the States as
she would have been able to do if she had Responsible Government. That
is why I have said and that is why I have always maintained that British
Indians should first ask for a Federation and Responsibility confined to
British India. Once that is obtained, the path for an All India Federation
on the basis of freedom and good government all round will become possible.
That possibility will be gone if this Federation comes into being.

342

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I have already drawn your attention to some of the deformities of the
Federal Scheme. What I have now drawn attention to is more than a
deformity. It is a fatality of the Federation. So far as the States’ people are
concerned, it is a decree of fate. It is something which they will never be
able to escape once it is executed.

The State’s problem is one which, I believe could be solved by the Paramount
Power along the lines I have suggested or along any other line consistently
with the welfare of the people, if it wishes to do so. Paramountcy is like
the Trimurti of Hindu Theology. It is Brahma because it has created the
States. It is Vishnu because it preserves them. It is Shiva because it can
destroy them. Paramountcy has played all these parts in different times in
relation to the States. At one time, it played the part of Shiva. It has now
been playing the part of Vishnu. To play the part of Vishnu with regard to
the States is from the point of view of the good of the people the crudest
act. Should British India be a party to it ? It is for you to consider.

IX

FEDERATION WITHOUT THE STATES

There is another point of view from which the case for Federation is
argued. I must now proceed to examine that argument.

It is argued that the constitution creates Autonomous Provinces. The
Autonomy of the Provinces means independence and therefore disruption of
the Unity of British India. This must be counteracted. Some binding force
must be provided so that the Provinces may be held together and unity
and uniformity built up for the last hundred years as a result of British
administration is preserved intact in fundamentals if not in details.

The argument is quite sound, if it only means that the creation of
Autonomous Provinces makes the creation of a Central Government a
necessity. This proposition I am sure will command universal assent. In
all the Round Table Conferences the late Sir Mahomad Iqbal was the only
delegate who was against the establishment of a Central Government.
Every other delegate irrespective of caste or creed differed from him. They
asserted that with the creation of Autonomous Provinces the establishment
of a Central Government was a categorial imperative and that without it
autonomy would result in anarchy.

But the argument goes beyond its legitimate scope. It seeks to justify the
establishment of a Central Government for All India. The argument which
can justify the establishment of a Central Government for British India
is used to justify a Central Government for the whole of India. And the
question that you have to consider is whether the creation of Autonomous
Provinces in British India can justify a Central Government for the whole

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

343

of India including the Indian States. My contention is that the creation of
Autonomous Provinces does not require the creation of a Central Government
for the whole of India.

The establishment of Autonomous Provinces in British India will call for
two things; (1) That there shall be a Central Government for British India and
(2) that the form of that Central Government must be federal and not unitary.
The essence of Federation lies in the division or allocation of Legislative and
Executive Powers between the Central Government and the Units by law.
The powers of the Units and the Centre are defined and demarcated and
the one is not entitled to invade the domain of the other. Autonomy of the
Provinces means that their powers are defined and vested in them. To make
Provincial Autonomy real the Powers of the Central Government must also
be limited, otherwise it would be in a position to invade the domain of the
Provinces. To put it simply, autonomy means definition and delimitation of
Powers by law and wherever there is definition and delimitation of powers
between two Political Bodies there is and there must be Federation. You
will now understand why I said that all that Provincial Autonomy demands
is that the Central Government for British India shall be Federal in form.
It does not justify all India Federation. Why is it necessary to bring in the
States still remains to be answered and those who plead for this All-India
Federation as distinct from British India Federation must answer this
question.

As I said all that is necessary is that Central Government for British
India shall be Federal in form and this fact has been recognized by the
Constitution.

Many seemed to have failed to notice that the Government of India Act,
1935 establishes two distinct Federations. One is a federation which is a
federation of the Provinces of British India another which is a Federation
of British Indian Provinces and the Indian States. It is surprising that so
many should have missed so important a fact. That the Government of India
Act establishes two federations is beyond dispute. To those who have any
doubt they should read Parts III and XIII together and Part II and Part III
together. Part II and Part III reveal that there is an All-India Federation
and lay down the constitution of that Federation. Part III and Part XIII
reveal that there is a Federation of British India Provinces apart from the
States and lay down the Constitution of that Federation. That Part XIII
relates to provisions which are called transitional does not make the British
India Scheme any the less a Federation, because the law is law whether it
is for a limited period or for all times.

That the Act establishes a Federation for British India Provinces and
also an All-India Federation cannot be denied. What is the difference
between these two Federations ? Is there any difference in the Legislative

344

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Powers of the Federation? The answer is no. The Federal Legislative List
remains the same whether the Federation that is in operation is British India
Federation or the All-India Federation. The Concurrent list also remains the
same whether the Federation in operation is one or the other.

Is there any difference in Financial Powers ? The answer again is no.

The Powers of taxation remain the same whether it is an All-India
Federation or British India Federation.

Is there any change in the Judicial organization of the Federation ? There
is none. Federal Court is as much necessary for the All-India Federation as
for British India Federation.

How do these two Federations differ ? The two differ in one respect only.
To find out this difference you should compare section 313 with section 8.
The comparison will show that if the Federation is a British India Federation
the Executive Authority of the Federation will be the Governor- General
in Council and if the federation is an All-India Federation the Executive
Authority in transferred matters to be the Governor-General acting on the
advice of Ministers responsible to the Legislature. In other words while there
is British India Federation only there is no responsibility at the Centre so
long as there is no All-India Federation.

This means that the entry of the States is a condition precedent for the
grant of responsibility to British India. You will therefore ask, why is the
entry of the States so essential ?

All Federations have come into existence as a result of some danger from
outside affecting the safety and integrity of the Units. The States of North
America federated because of the fear of subjugation of the States by British
Imperialism. The Provinces of Canada federated because of the danger
of invasion or absorption by the United States. The Australian Colonies
federated because of the danger of invasion by Japan. It is obvious that
the Indian Federation is not the result of any such circumstance. There is
no new invader on the border of India waiting to pounce upon both British
India and the Indian States. Nor is this Federation necessary for bringing
about peace between British India and the Indian States. It matters not
that British India is under the sovereignty of the Crown and the Indian
States are under the suzerainty of the Crown. So far as foreign relations
are concerned, and they include peace and war, the two are subordinate
to one and the same authority namely the crown. That is the reason why
the two have been at peace. That is the reason why they will not be and
cannot be at war. Prevention of external aggression or the maintenance of
internal peace cannot be the motive for this All India Federation. What
then can be the motive of this Federation? Why are the States invited to
enter into this Federation? Why is their entry made a condition precedent
for responsibility at the Centre ? To put it bluntly,

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

345

the motive is to use the Princes to support imperial interests and to curb
the rising tide of democracy in British India. I should like to have another
explanation, if there is any. I see none. That the Princes are wanted in the
Federation to serve ends of the British Imperialism is beyond question. The
Secretary of State for India speaking in Parliament during the course of the
debate on the Government of India Bill admitted that “we should all welcome
the entry into the Central Government of India of a great force of stability
and imperial feeling represented by the Princes”. While the suppression of
democracy in British India may not be the motive I am sure that that will
be the consequence of the entry of the Princes in the Federation.

What a price has been paid for the entry of the Federation ! I do not wish
to repeat what I have said. If you will re-call what I have said regarding the
discrimination which has been made in favour of the Princes in the matter
of representation, taxation, administration, legislation etc., you will know
what benefits have been conferred, what rights have been surrendered and
what immunities have been granted by British India to induce the Princes
to come into the Federation. And what has British India got in return?

If the Federal Constitution had provided full responsible Government,
there would have been some compensation to British India for the price it
has paid to the Princes for their joining the Federation. But British India
has not got any responsibility worth the name. What British India has got
is a system of responsibility halved in part and mutilated in substance by
conditions and restraints. Not only British India has not been able to secure
responsibility at the Centre commensurate with the sacrifices it has made
for making the Federation easy for the Princes, but it has lost its claim for
Dominion Status in its own right and independently of the Princes. Many
people do not know what British India has lost and stands to lose in this
business of an All India Federation. The new Constitution is the result
of the struggle of the people of British India. It is the agitation and the
sufferings of the people of British India which was the compelling force
behind this constitution. What was the right which the people of British
India were claiming for themselves ? As I have said, their first claim was
good government in British India. Next they claimed self-government, that
is responsible government for British India. Lastly, they claimed Dominion
Status for British India. Each one of these claims have been accepted by
the British Parliament. In 1917 the British Parliament accepted the goal of
Responsible Government. In 1929 the English Nation accepted the goal of
Dominion Status, Now it must be emphasised that each time the claim was
made, it was made in the name of the people of British India. Each time it
was accepted in relation to the people of British India. What is going to be
the position of British India as a result of the Federation?

346

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The position of British India is that they can never get any responsibility
at the Centre unless the Princes come into the Scheme. That means that
British India has lost its right to claim Responsible Government for itself
in its own name and independently of the Princes. This right was a vested
right because it was the result of a claim made and accepted. That right has
been lost because British India is made dependent for the realization of its
destiny upon the wishes of the States. Of the two parts of this Federation.
British India is the progressive part and the States form the unprogressive
part. That the progressive part should be tied up to the chariot of the
unprogressive and its path and destiny should be made dependent upon
the unprogressive part constitutes the most tragic side of this Federation.

For this tragedy you have to blame your own national leaders. Fortunately
for me I am not one of your national leaders. The utmost rank to which I
have risen is that of a leader of the Untouchables. I find even that rank has
been denied to me. Thakkar Bapa, the left hand man of Mahatma Gandhi.
I call him left hand man only because Vallabhbhai Patel is the right hand
man — very recently said that I was only the leader of the Mahars. He
would not even allow me the leadership of the Untouchables of the Bombay
Presidency. Whether what Thakkar Bapa said was said by him out of malice
or out of love of truth does not worry me. For politics is not my first love nor
is national leaderhip the goal of my life. On the other hand, when I see what
disasters your national leaders have brought upon this country I feel relieved
to know that I am not included in that august crowd. Believe me when I say
that some of your national leaders were thoroughly unprepared for the job
of constitution-making. They went to the Round Table Conference without
any comparative study of constitutions and could propound no solutions to
problems with which they were presented. Others who were undoubtedly
competent to tackle the problem were like little children so charged with
the ideal of Federation that they never cared to see whether what they
were shaping was a real federation or a fraud in the name of Federation.
This tragedy is entirely due to wrong leadership. I do not know if the steps
taken can be retraced and whether the lost ground can be regained. But I
think it is a right thing that the people of British India should know what
they have lost. They have a federation of their own and they have right to
demand responsibility for their federation.

There is another reason why it would be desirable to have a Federation
of British India only. A Federation of British India and of the Indian States
cannot work harmoniously. There are two elements which I am sure will
produce a conflict between British India and the Indian States. The first
element arises out of the difference in the position of the representatives
of British India and those of the Indian States. The representatives of
British India will be free men. The representatives of the Indian States

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

347

will be bondmen of the Political Department. The sources of mandate of those
two sets of representatives in the Federal Legislature will be different. The
British India representatives will be engaged in extending the authority of
the Ministers. The States representatives are sure to act and will be made
to act so as to lend support to the authority of the Governor-General as
against the Ministers. This conflict is inevitable and it is sure to embitter
the feelings of British India towards the Indian States. This was precisely
what happened in the last regime in the Provinces. The feelings of the elected
members towards the nominated members in the old Provincial Councils
were certainly unfriendly. This experience I am sure will be repeated in the
Federal Legislature. That it should be so is very natural when one section
of the House feels that the other section has been brought in to thwart
its wishes and is acting as the tool of some power outside the control of
the Legislature. This is one element of disharmony. The other element of
disharmony is the disparity in the position of British Indian States under
the Federation. Equality before law is a precious thing. But not all people
value it for the same reason. Most cherish it an ideal. Few realize why it is
crucial. Equality before the law compels men to make common cause with
all others similarly affected. Whereas if there is no equality, if some are
favoured and others are burdened, those specially favoured not only refuse
to join those who are burdened in the struggle for equality but actually
take sides against them. A Dictator might, as the kings did in the olden
times, pull out one by one the teeth of a few without necessarily exciting
the resentment of the other people. On the contrary, the others will join in
the raid. But suppose a law was made that all must contribute as much
money as the dictators ask for under penalty of their teeth being drawn out
all would rise in opposition. There is no equality between British India and
the Indian States under the Federation. Indian States enjoy many benefits
and many exemptions which are denied to British India. This is particularly
so in the matter of taxation. There is bound to be great acrimony between
the representatives of British India and those of the Indian States as to
who should bear the load of taxation first. Patriotism vanishes when you
touch a man’s pocket and I am sure that the States representatives will
prefer their own financial interest to the necessities of a common front to
make the executive responsible to the Legislature.

What is the use of housing British India and the Indian States under one
edifice if the result is to make them quarrel with each other ?

There is a complete dissimilarity between the forms of Government
prevalent in British India and the Indian States and the principles underlying
the two. These dissimilarities need not produce any antagonism between the
Indian States and British India if the two continue to evolve in their separate
spheres. So long as the form of Government in the Indian States does not
become a factor in the decision of affairs which affects British India, British

348

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

India can tolerate those forms of Government however antiquated they
may be. But the Federation makes them a factor and a powerful factor
and British India cannot remain indifferent to them. Indeed the forging
of the Federation will compel British India to launch a compaign in sheer
self-interest for revolutionising the forms of Government prevalent in the
Indian States.

This will be the inevitable result of this Federation. Is this a consummation
which the States devoutly wish for ? This is a question they will have to
consider.

Does British India welcome this prospect ? Speaking for myself I will
not. It would be impossible to wage war on so vast a front. The States are
too numerous to allow concentrated attack. The States being a part of the
structure, you cannot attack them and justify your attack as a Constitutional
Act. Secondly, why put yourself in this difficulty ? Sometimes it turns out
that a man thinks that he is buying property when as a matter of fact he is
buying litigation. For British India to accept this Federation is like buying
trouble. Thirdly, this Constitution is a settlement from which Dominion
Status is most rigidly excluded not only for the present but also for the
future as well.

Looked at from any point of view, the wisest course seems to me that
leaving the States where they are, British India should proceed on its own
evolution and Federation for itself.

X

FEDERATION FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW

Different people are looking at this Federation from different points of
view. There is the point of view of the Princes. There is the point of view
of the Hindus and the Muslims and the Congress. There is also the point
of view of the Merchant and the Trader. The point of view of each one of
these is of course the result of their particular interests.

What is the interest of the Princes in this Federation? To understand
the motives of the Princes you must go back to the Butler Committee. The
Princes had been complaining of the encroachment of the Political Department
of the Government of India upon their treaty rights under the Doctrine of
Paramountcy. The Princes were insisting that the Political Department had
no greater right against the States except those that were given by the
treaties subsisting between them and the British Government. The Political
Department on the other hand claimed that in addition to the rights referable
to the treaties, the Crown had also rights which were referable to political
usages and customs. To adjudicate upon this dispute, the Secretary of State
agreed to appoint the Butler Committee. The Princes had hoped that the
Butler Committee would accept their contentions and limit the scope of

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

349

Paramountcy to the rights referable to the treaties. Unfortunately for the
Princes they were disappointed, because the Butler Committee reported that
the Paramountcy was paramount and that there could be no definition or
delimitation of it. This decision of the Butler Committee meant a complete
subordination of the Princes to the Political Department of the Government
of India and the Princes were in search of an escape from this unfortunate
position in which they were placed and they found, and quite rightly, that
the only solution which can enable them to esape the tyranny of the Political
Department was the Federation; because to the extent to which the Federal
authority prevailed, the authority of the Political Department would vanish
and as the Federal authority could only be exercised by a Federal Legislature
and a Federal Executive and as they would have sufficient voice in the
Federal Legislature and the Federal Executive they thought of federation.
The federal solution of their problem offered two advantages to the Princes.
The first was that it would secure to the States internal autonomy which
they were very anxious to have, for it is of the essence of federating units
to remain in their own hands all powers save those which they themselves
have willingly delegated to a common centre and over which they themselves
possess a share in the control. The second advantage of the Federation was
that Paramountcy would disappear to the extent of the Federal authority. The
motive of the Princes, therefore, was selfish and their primary aim was to get
rid as much as possible of the authority of the Political Department of the
Government of India. This was one of the primary interests of the Princes.
The Princes had another interests to safeguard. That was to preserve their
powers of civil and military government as much as possible. They wanted
to make the Federation as thin as possible so that it might not impinge
upon them very hard. The interest of the Princes is two-fold. They wanted
to escape Paramountcy. Secondly, they did not want to subject themselves
too much to the authority of the Federation. In looking at the Federation,
the Princes keep two questions before them. How far will this Federation
enable them to escape the tyranny of Paramountcy ? Secondly, how far does
this scheme of Federation take away their sovereignty and their powers of
internal government ? They want to draw more under the former and give
less under the latter.

The Muslims had an interest which not only coloured their whole vision
but made it so limited that they did not care to look at anything else.
That interest was their interest as a minority. They knew only one means
of protecting themselves against the Hindu majority. That was to ask for
reservation of seats with separate electorates and weightage in representation.
In 1930 they discovered that there was another and a more efficacious
method of protecting the Muslim minorities. That was to carve out new
Provinces in which Muslims would be in a majority and Hindus in a minority
as a counterblast to Provinces with Hindus as a majority and Muslims as

350

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a minority. They hit upon this system because they felt such as a system
of balance of Provinces would permit the Muslims in the Muslim majority
Provinces to hold the Hindu minorities in their Provinces as hostage for
the good behaviour of the Hindu Majorities in the Provinces in which the
Muslims were in minority. The creation of Muslim majority Provinces and to
make them strong and powerful was their dominant interest. To accomplish
this they demanded the separation of Sindh and the grant of responsible
government to the North West Frontier Provinces so that the Muslims could
have a command of four Provinces. To make the Provinces strong they
insisted on making the Centre weak. As a means to this end the Muslims
demanded that residuary powers should be given to the Provinces and the
Hindu representation in the Centre should be reduced by giving the Muslims
not only 1/3 of seats from the total fixed for British India but also 1/3 from
the total assigned to the Princes.

The Hindus as represented by the Hindu Mahasabha were concerned
with only one thing. How to meet what they called the menace of the
Musalmans ? The Hindu Mahasabha felt that the accession of the Princes
was an accretion to the Hindu strength. Everything else was to them of no
consequence. Its point of view was Federation at any cost.

The next class whose point of view is worthy of consideration is the Indian
Commercial Community. The commercial community is no doubt a small
community in a vast country like India, but there can be no doubt about it
that the point of view of this community is really more decisive than the
point of view of any other community. This community has been behind
the Congress. It is this community which has supplied the Congress the
sinews of war and it knows that having paid the piper it can call for the
tune. The commercial community is primarily interested in what is called
commercial discrimination and the lowering of the exchange Ratio. It was a
very narrow and limited point of view. The Indian Commercial Community
is out to displace Europeans from Trade and Commerce and take their place.
This it claims to do in the name of nationalism. It wants the right to lower
the exchange rate and make profit in its foreign trade. This also it claims
to do in the name of nationalism. Beyond getting profits to themselves the
Merchants and Traders have no other consideration.

What shall I say about the Congress? What was its point of view? I
am sure I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting facts when I say that
the Congress point of view at the Round Table Conference was that the
Congress was the only party in India and that no body else counted and
that the British should settle with the Congress only. This was the burden
of Mr. Gandhi’s song at the Round Table Conference, He was so busy in
establishing his own claim to recognition by the British as the dictator of
India that he forgot altogether that the important question was not, with

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

351

whom the settlement should be made but what were to be the terms of
that settlement. As to the terms of the settlement, Mr. Gandhi was quite
unequal to the task. When he went to London he had forgotten that he
would have before him not those who go to him to obtain his advice and
return with his blessings but persons who would treat him as a lawyer
treats a witness in the box. Mr. Gandhi also forgot that he was going to a
political conference. He went there as though he was going to a Vaishnava
Shrine singing the Narsi Mehta’s Songs. When I think of the whole affair I
am wondering if any nation had ever sent a representative to negotiate the
terms of a national settlement who was more unfit than Mr. Gandhi. How
unfit Mr. Gandhi was to negotiate a settlement becomes evident when one
realizes that this Ambassador of India was ready to return to India with
only Provincial Autonomy when as a matter of fact he was sent to negotiate
on the basis of Independence. No man has brought greater disasters to the,
interests of India than did Mr. Gandhi at the Round Table Conference. Less
one speaks of him the better.

How far each of these interests feel satisfied with the Federal Scheme
such as it is, it is not for me to say. The question one may however ask
is, are these the only points of view that must be taken into consideration
in deciding as to what we shall do with this Federation? I protest that
there are other points of view besides those mentioned above which-must
receive attention. There is the point of view of the Free man. There is also
the point of view of the Poor man. What have they to say of Federation?
The Federation does not seem to take any account of them. Yet they are
the people who are most deeply concerned. Can the free man hope that the
Federal Constitution will not be a menace to his freedom? Can the poor
man feel that the constitution will enable him to have old values revalued,
to have vested rights devested? I have no doubt that this Federation if it
comes into being will be a standing menace to the free man and an obstacle
in the way of the poor man. What freedom can there be when you are made
subject to the autocracy of the Princes? What economic betterment can there
be when you get Second Chambers with vested rights entrenched in Ml and
when legislation affecting property is subject to sanction by the Government
both before introducing and after it has passed ?

XI

CONCLUSION

I have perhaps detained you longer than I should have done. You will
allow that it is not altogether my fault. The vastness of the subject is one
reason for the length of this address.

I must, however, confess that there is also another reason which has
persuaded me not to cut too short. We are standing today at the point of

352

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

time where the old age ends and the new begins. The old age was the
age of Ranade, Agarkar, Tilak, Gokhale, Wachha, Sic Pherozeshah Mehta,
Surendranath Bannerjee. The new age is the age of Mr. Gandhi and this
generation is said to be Gandhi generation. As one who knows something of
the old age and also something of the new I see some very definite marks
of difference between the two. The type of leadership has undergone a
profound change. In the age of Ranade the leaders struggled to modernize
India. In the age of Gandhi the leaders are making her a living specimen
of antiquity. In the age of Ranade leaders depended upon experience as
a corrective method of their thoughts and their deeds. The leaders of the
present age depend upon their inner voice as their guide. Not only is there
a difference in their mental make up there is a difference even in their view
point regarding external appearance. The leaders of the old age took care
to be well clad while the leaders of the present age take pride in being half
clad. The leaders of the Gandhi age are of course aware of these differences.
But far from blushing for their views and their appearance they claim
that the India of Gandhi is superior to India of Ranade. They say that the
age of Mr. Gandhi is an agitated and an expectant age, which the age of
Mr. Ranade was not.

Those who have lived both in the age of Ranade and the age of Gandhi
will admit that there is this difference between the two. At the same time
they will be able to insist that if the India of Ranade was less agitated it was
more honest and that if it was less expectant it was more enlightened. The
age of Ranade was an age in which men and women did engage themselves
seriously in studying and examining the facts of their life, and what is
more important is that in the face of the opposition of the orthodox mass
they tried to mould their lives and their character in accordance with the
light they found as a result of their research. In the age of Ranade there
was not the same divorce between a politician and a student which one
sees in the Gandhi age. In the age of Ranade a politician, who was not a
student, was treated as an intolerable nuisance, if not a danger. In the age
of Mr. Gandhi learning, if it is not despised, is certainly not deemed to be
a necessary qualification of a politician.

To my mind there is no doubt that this Gandhi age is the dark age of
India. It is an age in which people instead of looking for their ideals in
the future are returning to antiquity. It is an age in which people have
ceased to think for themselves and as they have ceased to think they
have ceased to read and examine the facts of their lives. The fate of an
ignorant democracy which refuses to follow the way shown by learning
and experience and chooses to grope in the dark paths of the mystics and
the megalomaniacs is a sad thing to contemplate. Such an age I thought
needed something more than a mere descriptive sketch of the Federal
Scheme, It needed a treatment which was complete though not exhaustive

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

353

and pointed without being dogmatic in order to make it alive to the dangers
arising from the inauguration of the Federal Scheme. This is the task I
had set before myself in preparing this address. Whether I have failed
or succeeded, it is for you to say. If this address has length which is not
compensated by depth, all I can say is that I have tried to do my duty
according to my lights.

I am not opposed to a Federal Form of Government. I confess I have a
partiality for a Unitary form of Government. I think India needs it. But I
also realize that a Federal Form of Government is inevitable if there is to be
Provincial Autonomy, But I am in dead horror the Federal Scheme contained
in the Government of India Act. I think I have justified my antipathy by
giving adequate reasons, I want all to examine them and come to their owe
conclusions. Let us however realize that the case of Provincial Autonomy
is very different from that of the Federal Scheme. To those who think that
the Federation should become acceptable if the Governor-General gave an
assurance along the same lines as was supposed to be done by the Governors
that he will not exercise his powers under his special responsibilities I
want to say two things. First I am sure the Governor-General cannot give
such an assurance because he is exercising these powers not merely in
the interest of the Crown but also in the interest of the States. Secondly,
even if he did, that cannot alter the nature of the Federal Scheme. To
those who think that a change in the system of State representation from
nomination to election will make the Federation less objectionable, I want
to say that they are treating a matter of detail as though it was a matter
of fundamental. Let us note what is fundamental and what is not. Let there
be no mistake, let there be no fooling as to this. We have had enough of
both. The real question is the extension and the growth of responsibility.
Is that possible ? That is the crux. Let us also realize that there is no use
hugging to Provincial Autonomy and leaving responsibility in the Centre
hanging in the air. I am convinced that without real responsibility at the
Centre, Provincial Autonomy is an empty shell.

What we should do to force our point of view, this is no place to discuss.
It is enough if I have succeeded in giving you an adequate idea of what are
the dangers of this Federal Scheme.

9

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK
AND

A WAY TO SOLVE IT

Address delivered at the Session
of

the All India Scheduled Castes Federation
held in

Bombay on May 6,1945

Published: 1945

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND
A WAY TO SOLVE IT

Mr. President,

I am indeed very grateful for your kind invitation to address the Annual
Session of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation. I am happy to see this
great gathering of the Scheduled Castes. Having regard to the very short
time which has elapsed since its establishment, the growth of the Federation
appears by all evidence to be phenomenal. That the Scheduled Castes all
over India have rallied round the Federation and are determined to make
the Federation their only representative organization is beyond question. The
growth of the Federation within so short a time will not be fully appreciated
unless the tremendous difficulties in the way of our organization have been
fully appreciated. There are agents of other political organizations which
decoy our people by false blandishments, by false promises and by false
propaganda. There is the ignorance of our own people, who do not know the
critical nature of the times we are living in and who do not know the value
of organization for achieving our political objects. There is a lamentable lack
of resources at our command. We have no money. We have no press. The
cruelest of tyrannies and oppressions, to which our people are subjected,
day in and day out all over India, are never reported by the Press. Even
our views on social and political questions are systematically suppressed
by an organized conspiracy on the part of the Press. We have no funds to
maintain a machinery, to render help to our people and to educate, agitate
and organize them.

These are the odds we have to contend against. That the Federation,
notwithstanding these difficulties, should have grown to this dimension is
entirely due to our men who have been ceaselessly and unselfishly devoting
themselves to the building up of this organization. I am sure you would
like me to pay Mr. Ganpat Mahadev Jadhav, the President of the Bombay
City Scheduled Castes Federation, our tribute for the work he has done. As
everyone knows, he possesses remarkable degree of organizing capacity and
I am sure the success of this Session is due to a great extent to his efforts
and to those who have been his co-workers.

358

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Ordinarily, at a gathering such as this I would have spoken — and our
people would expect me to speak — on any one of the social and political
problems of the Scheduled Castes. But I do not propose to engage myself
in a discourse on so sectarian a subject. Instead, I propose to speak on a
topic, which is general and has a wider appeal, namely the shape and form
of the future Constitution of India.

It may be as well for me to explain the reasons for my decision. For
the moment, the responsibility for leading the movement of the Scheduled
Castes and facing its day-to-day problems does not lie on my shoulders. On
account of my office I am out of it and I have no desire to take it up. That
is one reason why I do not propose to take up a sectarian subject which is
related only to the Scheduled Castes.

The Scheduled Castes are often charged as being selfish, interested only
in themselves ; that they have no constructive suggestions to make for the
solution of the country’s political problem. The charge is entirely untrue ; and
if it is true, the Untouchables will not be the only ones who will be found
guilty of it. Most people in India do not make constructive suggestions. The
reason is not that there are not people capable of constructive thought. The
reason why all constructive thought remains bottled up is because a long
and continuous propaganda has inculcated upon the minds of the generality
of the people that nothing should be respected and nothing should be
accepted unless it emanates from the Congress. It is this which has killed
all constructive thought in this country. At the same time, I believe this
charge against the Scheduled Castes should be repelled in a positive way by
showing that the Scheduled Castes are capable of putting forth constructive
proposals for the general political advancement of the country which the
country, if it cares to, may consider. This is the second reason why I have
on this occasion chosen this subject of general interest.

II

RESPONSIBILITY FOR FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION

Before I set out in concrete terms the constitutional proposals I have in
mind, I wish to raise two preliminary issues. First is : Who should frame a
Constitution for India ? It is necessary to raise this question because there
are quite a lot of people in India who are hoping, if not asking, the British
Government to resolve the deadlock and to frame a Constitution for India.
I think there is a gross fallacy in such a view which needs to be exposed. A
Constitution, framed by the British Government and imposed upon Indians,
sufficed in the past. But if the nature of the future Constitution Indians are
clamouring for, is borne in mind it will be clear that an imposed Constitution
will not do.

The difference between the past Constitutions and the future Constitution
of India is fundamental, and those, who still rely on the British for framing

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

359

a Constitution for India, do not seem to have realized this difference. The
difference lies in this that the past Constitutions contained a breakdown
clause. But the future Constitution of India cannot contain such a breakdown
clause. People in India decry the breakdown clause — by now the notorious
section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. That is because they do
not know the why and the how of its place in the Act. Its importance will
become apparent if two important considerations governing the political life
of a community are borne in mind. First of these considerations is that Law
and Order is the medicine of the body politic, and when the body politic
goes sick this medicine must be administered. Indeed, so important is this
consideration that failure to administer it must be deemed to be a crime
against society and civilization. The second consideration is that though it
is true that no government has a vested right to govern, it is equally true
that there must always be a government to govern — which I mean maintain
Law and Order — until it is displaced by a better government. The breakdown
clause serves these two purposes. As such, it is of the highest value for the
peace and tranquillity of the people. It is the one and only means which can
save the country from anarchy. For, when Constitutional Government fails,
the breakdown clause has at least the merit of maintaining Government.

In the past this distinction between Constitutional Government
and Government with the provision for Government stepping in when
Constitutional Government failed, was a feasible proposition. It was
feasible because while the British Government gave Indians the right to
a Constitutional Government, it kept to itself the right to govern, should
Constitutional Government fail. In the future Constitution of India, it
would not be possible to maintain this distinction. It would not be possible
for the British Government to give the Indians the right to Constitutional
Government and also to keep to itself the right to govern in case there was
a breakdown in the Constitutional Government. The reason is quite obvious.
The past Constitutions of India did not treat India as a Dominion. The future
Constitution will proceed on the assumption that India will be a Dominion.
The breakdown clause or the possibility of Government stepping in, when
Constitutional Government has failed, can be reconciled in the case of a
country, which has no Dominion Status. But the two are irreconcilable in
the case of a Dominion. In the case of a Dominion or for the matter of that
in the case of any free country, there is either a Constitutional Government
or a Rebellion.

What does this mean ? It means that it is impossible to frame a Constitution
for an Indian Dominion with a possibility of a breakdown. To put the same
thing in a different language the Constitution must be so made that it will
not only command the obedience but also the respect of all ; and all or if
not all, at any rate, all important elements in the national life of India shall
be prepared to uphold it and to give it their support. This can happen only

360

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

if the Constitution is framed by Indians for Indians and with the voluntary
consent of Indians. If the Constitution is imposed by the British Government
and is not accepted by one section and is opposed by another, there will
arise in the country an element, hostile to the Constitution, and which will
devote its energies not to working the Constitution but to breaking it. The
anti- Constitution party may look upon destroying the Constitution as its
only duty and may engage itself in “pronouncing” against a party working
the Constitution in the real Latin American fashion.

It is useless for the British to frame a Constitution for India which they
will not remain to enforce. The same result will ensue if the Constitution is
imposed by one powerful section or a combination of such sections on other
sections. I am, therefore, firmly of opinion that if Indians want Dominion
Status, they cannot escape the responsibility of framing their own Constitution.
The position is thus inescapable.

Ill

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

The second question that I wish to raise is : Should there be a Constituent
Assembly, charged with the function of making a Constitution ? Constituent
Assembly is on the lips of everybody. The Congress parties in their
resolutions, passed before the Congress ministries resigned, demanded
that the Constitution for India should be made by a Constituent Assembly
composed of Indians. A Constituent Assembly was included in the Cripps
proposals. The Sapru Committee has followed suit.

I must state that I am wholly opposed to the proposals of a Constituent
Assembly. It is absolutely superfluous. I regard it as a most dangerous
project, which may involve this country in a Civil War. In the first place,
I do not see why a Constituent Assembly is at all necessary. Indians are
not in the same position as the Fathers of the American Constitution
were, when they framed the Constitution of the United States. They had
to evolve ideas, suitable for the constitution for a free people. They had
no constitutional patterns before them to draw upon. This cannot however
be the case for Indians. Constitutional ideas and constitutional forms are
ready at hand. Again, room for variety is very small. There are not more
than two or three constitutional patterns to choose from. Thirdly, there are
hardly any big and purely constitutional questions about which there can be
said to be much dispute among Indians. It is agreed that the future Indian
Constitution should be Federal. It is also more or less settled what subjects
should go to the Centre and what to the Provinces. There is no quarrel
over the division of Revenues between the Centre and the Provinces, none
on Franchise and none on the relation of the Judiciary to the Legislature
and the Executive. The only point of dispute, which is outstanding, centres
round the question of the residuary powers — whether they should be
with the Centre or with the Provinces. But that is hardly a matter worth

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

361

bothering about Indeed, the provision contained in the present Government
of India Act could be adopted as the best compromise.

Having regard to this I cannot see why a Constituent Assembly is necessary
to incubate a constitution. So much of the Constitution of India has already
been written out in the Government of India Act, 1935, that it seems to be
an act of supererogation to appoint a Constituent Assembly to do the thing
ever again. All that is necessary is to delete those sections of the Government
of India Act, 1935, which are inconsistent with Dominion Status.

The only function which could be left to a Constituent Assembly is to find
a solution of the Communal Problem. I am quite positive that whatever be
the terms of reference of the Constituent Assembly, the Communal Question
should not form a part of them. Consider the composition of the Constituent
Assembly as suggested by the Sapru Committee. The total membership is
fixed at 160. The election is by joint electorates by members of the Provincial
Legislative Assemblies under a system of proportional representation and the
decision is to be by three-fourths of the members present and voting. Can a
minority accept this Constituent Assembly as a safe body, in the impartiality
of which it can place implicit confidence ? The answer to this question must
depend upon what answers one can give to two other questions : Does it
guarantee that the representatives of a minority elected to the Assembly will
be its true representatives ? Secondly, does it guarantee that the decision of
the Assembly with regard to the claims of any particular minority will not
in fact be an imposition on the minority ? On neither of these two questions
can I confidently say that a minority need have no cause for fear.

Before taking up these questions, let me point out what differences there
are between the Cripps Constituent Assembly and the Sapru Constituent
Assembly. They may be stated as follows :

(i) The total number for the Constituent Assembly fixed by the Sapru
Committee is 160. Sir Stafford Cripps had not fixed any number. But
the provision contained in his proposal that the Constituent Assembly
shall consist of ten per cent of the total number of members of the
Provincial Legislatures virtually fixed the number to about 158 — a
difference of only 2.

(ii) The method of election to the Constituent Assembly by the Sapru
Committee is by joint electorate under the system of proportional
representation. In this there is no difference between the Cripps plan
and the Sapru plan for the composition of the Constituent Assembly.

(iii) Under the Cripps plan, there was no communal reservation. The
Sapru plan departs from the Cripps plan in this respect, in as
much as it reserves seats for particular communities in prescribed

362

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

proportions. This difference is only normal. For, though the Cripps
plan did not in terms fix the number, the scheme of proportional
representation would have in fact resulted in such reservation. The
difference in the quota of representation under the two schemes
will be seen from the following table :

Communities and Interests

Quota of seats in the Constituent
Assembly

Under Cripps’ Under Sapru’s

Hindus

77

51

Muslims

50

51

Scheduled Castes

15

20

Sikhs

3

8

Indian Christians

2

7

Anglo-Indians

1

2

Europeans

6

1

Aboriginal Tribes

2

3

Special Interests

16

Others

2

1

158

160

The Sapru Committee has not only fixed the numbers for each
Community in the composition of the Constituent Assembly but it
has offered the Muslims equality with the Hindus. For this departure
the Committee’s plea is that in consideration for this offer it has
demanded joint electorate as a basis for election to the Constituent
Assembly. In this, the Committee must be said to have entirely
misunderstood the Cripps proposals. Joint-Electorates were already
provided for in the Cripps proposals one clause of which reads — “The
members of the Lower Houses of the Provincial Legislatures are
to form a single Electoral College”. This is simply another way of
saying that the election shall be by joint-electorate. It has given
something for nothing to one element and thereby put the other
Communities in a hazard.

(iv) Under the Cripps proposal the decision of the Assembly was to be
by majority of those present and voting, Under the Sapru proposal
the decision is to be by a majority of 3/4th of those present and
voting.

Now to revert to the two questions. How does the position stands with
regard to the first question ? To give one’s opinion on it, it is first necessary

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

363

to know the communal distribution of the membership of the Provincial
Legislative Assemblies. The following table sums up the position :

Distribution of Seats by Communities in the Provincial
Legislative Assemblies*

Communities

1

General

2

Women University Trade
Unions

3 4 5

Com-

merce

6

Land

lords

7

Total

8

1 .

Hindus

.. 651

26

7

33

31

22

770

2.

Muslims

.. 482

10

1

5

6

13

517

3.

Scheduled Castes.

151

151

4.

Indian Christians.

20

1

21

5.

Anglo-Indians

11

1

12

6.

Sikhs

34

1

1

36

7.

Europeans

26

19

1

46

8.

Aboriginals

24

24

Total

.. 1,399

39

8

38

56

37

1,577

Has the communal reservation made by the Sapru proposal, and which
is not to be found in the Cripps proposal, any value ? That depends upon
how far one community will be able to influence the election of the members
of the other communities ? What are the prospects in this regard ? Let me
give another table :

Voting strength in relation to seats

Communities

Voters for
Constituent
Assembly

Quota of
seats in the
Constituent
Assembly

Number of
votes required
for electing
the quota

(+)Excess of
voters over
(-)Deficiency
of voters
below

requirement

1. Hindus

778

51

561

+ 217

2. Muslims

561

51

517

+ 44

3. Scheduled Castes .

151

20

220

- 69

4. Indian Christians .

21

7

77

- 56

5. Sikhs

36

8

88

- 52

6. Europeans

46

1

11

+ 35

From this table the following conclusions emerge :

(i) Taking the total votes to be 1577 and the total number to be elected
160, the quota under the proportional system of representation would
roughly come to 10+1 = 11.

*The distribution of seats for (1) Universities; (2) Trade Unions, (3) Commerce and (4)
Landlords among the communities does not stand for an exact figure. It is based on guess as
to how they may be divided among the communities having regard to the relative position.

364

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(ii) Taking 11 as the quota, the Hindus will have 217, the Muslims 44
and the Europeans 35 votes to spare, while the Scheduled Castes
will be short by 69, the Indian Christians by 56 and the Sikhs by
52 votes.

To put the same thing in a different way :

(i) The Hindus with their excess of 217 votes can elect 20 non-Hindus,
who would be dependent upon them ; the Muslims with their excess
of 44 votes can elect 4 non-Muslims, who would be dependent upon
them and the Europeans with their excess of 35 votes would be able
to elect 3 non-Europeans, who would be dependent upon them.

(ii) The Scheduled Castes with a shortage of 69 votes will be able
to elect only 13 members on the stock of their own votes and for
7 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim or European
voters. The Indian Christians with a shortage of 56 votes will be
able to elect only 2 seats on the stock of their own voters. For the
rest of the 5 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim or
European voters. Similarly the Sikhs with a shortage of 52 will be
able to elect only 3 seats on the stock of their own voters. For the
rest of the 5 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim
or European voters

Such is the position. It is evident that the excess representation granted
to the smaller minorities is only an eye-wash. Their representation is made
so dependent that in no sense can it be called a real representation.

Let me now take the second question. Is the rule of decision adopted
by the Sapru Committee for the Constituent Assembly a safe rule ? The
Cripps proposal had adopted the rule of bare majority. This was an absurd
proposition which no sensible man could have proposed. I know of no case
where questions relating to the constitution were left to be decided by a
simple majority.

The Cripps proposals sought to excuse the adoption of the majority rule
on the ground that there was to be a further provision for safeguarding
the interest of the minorities. The provision was to take the form of a
Treaty between the British Crown and the Indian Constituent Assembly,
before Parliament was to relinquish its sovereignty and make India free.
The proposal of a Treaty would have had some sense, if the Treaty was
to override the constitution. But the proposal was impossible as under the
Cripps scheme India was free to become a Dominion or an Independent
country as she pleased. For once India became a Dominion it would ipso
facto acquire all the legal power necessary to pass an enactment declaring
that the Treaty shall not override the constitution. In that case the
Treaty would have been no better than a calendar which members of the
minorities might, if they wished, hang on the walls of their houses. This

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

365

was exactly what happened to the Irish Treaty. The Irish Treaty continued
to override the Irish Constitution so long as Ireland was not a Dominion.
But the moment Ireland became a Dominion the over riding power of the
Treaty was taken away by a short and simple enactment of the Parliament
of the Irish Free State and the British Parliament did nothing, for it knew
that Ireland was a Dominion and therefore it could do nothing. How so
absurd a provision came to be put forth by so eminent a person to assure
the minorities, I am unable to understand.

The provisions contained in the Sapru proposals appear to be an
improvement. But are they really an improvement ? I am sure they are not.
A three-fourths majority of 160 means that a view to prevail must have the
support of 120 members. Before accepting this as an improvement, one has
to have some idea as to how this group of 120 is likely to be formed. If the
Hindus and the Muslims combine they will together make up 102 and will
need only 18 more to make up 120. Most of the special seats and a few more
from others may easily fall into the hands of this combine. If this happens the
decision of the Assembly will obviously be an imposition upon the Scheduled
Castes, the Sikhs, the Indian Christians etc. Similarly, if the Muslims are
isolated the decision will not be a joint decision but an imposition upon the
Muslims by non-Muslims. These possibilities of permutation and combination
for the purpose of check-mating or out-manouvering of some communities
by others, I am sorry to say, have not been taken into consideration by
the Sapru Committee. There would have been some safety, if the Sapru
Committee had provided that the three-fourths majority shall at least include
50 per cent of each element.

Following upon the procedure adopted in the making of the constitution of
the United States, the Sapru Committee could have added a further provision
for the ratification at any rate of the communal part of the decision of the
Assembly by the representatives of the minorities outside the Assembly. None
of these provisions finds a place in the plan of the Constituent Assembly as
designed by the Sapru Committee. Consequently the Constituent Assembly
has become a snare.

There are many other arguments against the plan of a Constituent
Assembly. I may mention one, which I confess has influenced me greatly.
When I read the history of the Union between Scotland and England, I was
shocked at the corruption and bribery that was practised to win the consent
of the Scottish Parliament. The whole of the Scottish Parliament was bought.
The chances of corruption and bribery being used in the Indian Constituent
Assembly to buy over members to support decisions desired by interested
groups are very real. Their effects, I am sure, cannot be overlooked. If this
happens, it will not only make mockery of the Constituent Assembly but I
feel quite certain that any attempt made to enforce its decisions will result
in a civil war. It is my considered opinion that the proposal of Constituent
Assembly is more dangerous than profitable and should not be entertained.

366

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

IV

NECESSITY OF A NEW APPROACH

I shall be asked that if the Constituent Assembly is not the correct
approach, what is the alternative ? I know I shall be confronted with such
a question. But I am confident in my view that if the Communal Question
has become difficult of solution it is not because it is insoluble, nor because
we had not yet employed the machinery of Constituent Assembly. It has
become insoluble because the approach to it is fundamentally wrong. The
defect in the present approach is that it proceeds by methods instead of
by principles. The principle is that there is no principle. There is only a
series of methods. If one method fails another is tried. It is this swing from
one method to another which has made the Communal Problem a jig-saw
puzzle. There being no principle there is no guide to tell why a particular
method has failed. There being no principle there is no assurance that the
new method will succeed.

The attempts at the solution of the Communal Problem are either in the
nature of a coward’s plan to cow tow to the bully or of bully’s plan to dictate
to the weak. Whenever a community grows powerful and demands certain
political advantages, concessions are made to it to win its goodwill. There is
no judicial examination of its claim ; no judgement on merits. The result is
that there are no limits to demands and there are no limits to concessions.
A start is made with a demand for separate electorate for a minority. It is
granted. It is followed by a demand for a separate electorate for a community
irrespective of the fact whether it is a minority or majority. That is granted.
A demand is made for separate representation on a population basis. That
is conceded. Next, a claim is made for weightage in representation. That
is granted. It is followed by a demand for statutory majority over other
minorities with the right for the majority to retain separate electorates. This
is granted. This is followed by a demand that the majority rule of another
community is intolerable, and therefore without prejudice to its rights to
maintain majority rule over other minorities, the majority of the offending
community should be reduced to equality. Nothing can be more absurd than
this policy of eternal appeasement, it is a policy of limitless demand followed
by endless appeasement.

Frankly, I don’t blame the community that indulges in this strategy.
It indulges in it because it has found that it pays, it pursues it because
there are no principles to fix the limits and it believes that more could be
legitimately asked and would be easily given. On the other hand, there is a
community economically poor, socially degraded, educationally backward and
which is exploited, oppressed and tyrannized without shame and without
remorse, disowned by society, unowned by Government and which has no
security for protection and no guarantee for justice, fair play and equal
opportunity. Such a community is told that it can have no safeguards, not

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

367

because it has no case for safeguards but only because the bully on whom the
bill of rights is presented thinks that because the community is not politically
organized to have sanctions behind its demand he can successfully bluff.

All this differential treatment is due to the fact, that there are no principles,
which are accepted as authoritative and binding on those who are parties to the
Communal Question. The absence of principles has another deleterious effect. It
has made impossible for public opinion to play its part. The public only knows
methods and notes that one method has failed another is being suggested. It
does not know why one method has failed and why another is said to be likely
to succeed. The result is that the public, instead of being mobilized to force
obstinate and recalcitrant parties to see sense and reason, are only witnessing
the discussions of Communal Questions whenever they take place is mere shows.

The approach I am making for the solution of the Communal Problem is
therefore based upon two considerations :

(1) That in proceeding to solve the Communal Problem it is essential to
define the governing principles which should be invoked for determining
the final solution, and

(2) That whatever the governing principles they must be applied to all
parties equally without fear or favour.

V

PROPOSALS FOR SOLUTION OF THE COMMUNAL PROBLEM

Having made my position clear on certain preliminary points, I will now
proceed to deal with the subject.

The Communal Problem raises three questions :

(A) The question of representation in the Legislature ;

(B) The question of representation in the Executive; and

(C) The question of representation in the Services.

A. Representation in Public Services

To take the last question first. This can hardly be said to be a subject of
controversy. The principle that all communities should be represented in the
Public Services in a prescribed proportion and no single community should be
allowed to have a monopoly has been accepted by the Government of India. This
principle has been embodied in the Government of India Resolutions of 1934
and 1943 and rules to carry it out have been laid down. It has even prescribed
that any appointment made contrary to the rules shall be deemed to be null and
void. All that is necessary is to convert administrative practice into statutory
obligation. This can be done by adding a Schedule to the Government of India
Act, which will include the provisions contained in these Resolutions and similar
provisions for the different provinces and make the Schedule a part of the Law
of the Constitution.

368

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

B. Representation in the Executive

This question raises three points :

(i) The quantum of representation in the Executive;

(ii) The nature of the Executive ;

(iii) The method of filling the places in the Executive.

(i) Quantum of Representation

For the solution of this question, the principle which should be adopted is that
the representation of the Hindus, the Muslims and the Scheduled Castes should
be equal to the quantum of their representation in the Legislature.

With regard to the other minorities such as the Sikhs, Indian Christians and
Anglo-Indians, it is difficult to give them representation in the Executive in
strict proportion to their representation in the Legislature. This difficulty arises
largely from the smallness of their numbers. If they are to get representation in
the Executive in exact proportion to their numbers, the Executive would have to
be enlarged to a fantastic degree. All that can be done, therefore, is to reserve
a seat or two for them in the Cabinet for their representation and to establish
a convention that they will get a fail portion of representation in the corps of
Parliamentary Secretaries that will have to be raised, when the new Constitution
comes into existence.

(ii) Nature of the Executive

In the Constitution of the Executive, I would propose the adoption of following
principles :

(1) It must be recognised that in a country like India where there is a
perpetual antipathy between the majority and the minorities and on
which account the danger of communal discrimination by majority against
minorities forms an ever-present menace to the minorities, the executive
power assumes far greater importance than the legislative power.

(2) In view of (1) above, the system under which a party which has secured
a majority at the poll is deemed entitled to form a Government on the
presumption that it has the confidence of the majority is untenable in
Indian conditions. The majority in India is a communal majority and not
a political majority. That being the difference, the presumption that arises
in England cannot be regarded as a valid presumption in the conditions
of India.

(3) The Executive should cease to be a Committee of the majority party in
the Legislature. It should be so constituted that it will have its mandate
not only from the majority but also from the minorities in the Legislature.

(4) The Executive should be non-Parliamentary in the sense that it shall
not be removeable before the term of the Legislature.

(5) The Executive should be Parliamentary in the sense that the
members of the Executive shall be chosen from the members of the

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

369

Legislature and shall have the right to sit in the House, speak, vote
and answer questions.

(iii) Method of Filling Places

In this connection, I would propose the adoption of the following principles :

(a) The Prime Minister as the executive head of the Government should
have the confidence of the whole House.

( b ) The person representating a particular minority in the Cabinet
should have the confidence of the members of his community in the
Legislature.

(c) A member of the Cabinet shall not be liable to be removed except on ;
impeachment by the House on the ground of corruption or treason.

Following those principles, my proposal is that the Prime Minister and the
members of the Cabinet from the majority community should be elected by the
whole House by a single transferable vote and that the representatives of the
different Minorities in the Cabinet should be elected by a single transferable
vote of the members of each minority community in the Legislature.

C. Representation in the Legislature

This is the most difficult question. All other questions depend upon the
solution of this question. It raises two points :

(i) The quantum of representation; and

(ii) The nature of the electorate.

(i) Quantum of Representation

I would first put forth my proposals and then explain the principles on
which they are based. The proposals are worked out in the following tables,
which show the scale of representation for the different communities in British
India in the Central Legislature as well as in the Provincial Legislature :

Proposed Ratio of Representation in the Legislatures

N.B . — The percentages of population in the following Tables differ from
the census figures as they have been taken after deducting the population
of Aboriginal Tribes :

1. CENTRAL ASSEMBLY

Community

Hindus

Muslims

Scheduled Castes
Indian Christians
Sikhs

Anglo-Indians

Percentage of Percentage of
population to total Representation

54.68

40

28.50

32

14.30

20

1.16

3

1.49

4

0.05

1

370

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

2. BOMBAY

Community

Percentage of
population to
total

Percentage of
Representation

Hindus

76.42

40

Muslims

9.98

28

Scheduled Castes

9.64

28

Indian Christians

1.75

2

Anglo-Indians

0.07

1

Parsees

0.44

1

3. MADRAS

Community

Percentage of
population to total

Percentage of
Representation

Hindus

71.20

40

Scheduled Castes

16.53

30

Muslims

7.98

24

Indian Christians

4.10

5

Anglo-Indians

0.06

1

4. BENGAL

Community

Percentage of
population to
total

Percentage of
Representation

Muslims

56.50

40

Hindus

30.03

33

Scheduled Castes

12.63

25

Indian Christians

0.19

1

Anglo-Indians

0.05

1

5. UNITED PROVINCES

Community

Percentage of
population to
total

Percentage of
Representation

Hindus

62.29

40

Scheduled Castes

21.40

29

Muslims

15.30

29

Indian Christians

0.24

1

Anglo-Indians

0.03

1

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT 371

6. PUNJAB

Community

Percentage of
population to
total

Percentage of
Representation

Muslims

.. .. 57.06

40

Hindus

22.17

28

Sikhs

13.22

21

Scheduled Castes

.. .. 4.39

9

Indian Christians

.. .. 1.71

2

7. C.P. & BERAR

Community

Percentage of
population to
total

Percentage of
Representation

Hindus

72.20

40

Scheduled Castes

20.23

34

Muslims

.. .. 5.70

25

Indian Christians

.. .. 0.36

1

8. BIHAR

Community

Percentage of
population to
total

Percentage of
Representation

Hindus

.. .. 70.76

40

Muslims

.. .. 15.05

30

Scheduled Castes

.. .. 13.80

28

Indian Christians

.. .. 1.71

2

9. ASSAM

Community

Percentage of
population to
total

Percentage of
Representation

Hindus

.. .. 45.60

40

Muslims

.. .. 44.59

39

Scheduled Castes

.. .. 8.76

19

Indian Christians

.. .. 0.48

2

10. ORISSA

Community

Percentage of
population to
total

Percentage of
Representation

Hindus

.. .. 70.80

40

Scheduled Castes

.. .. 17.66

36

Muslims

.. .. 2.07

22

Indian Christians

.. .. 0.37

2

372 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

11. SIND

Community

Percentage of

Percentage of

population to

Representation

total

Hindus

23.08

40

Muslims

71.30

40

Scheduled Castes

4.26

19

Indian Christians

0.29

1

VI

EFFECT ON MINORITIES

It may be desirable to set out in a

tabular form the changes in the

representation of the different minorities as prescribed in

the Government

of India Act, 1935,

and as laid down in

the proposals —

EFFECT ON MUSLIMS

Ratio of Representation

Legislature

Population

Under the

Under the

Ratio

Government of

proposed

India Act, 1935

scheme

Central

28.50

32.00

32

Madras

8.00

13.49

24

Bombay

10.00

17.40

28

U.P.

15.30

28.95

29

C.P.

5.70

12.50

25

Bihar

15.00

26.32

28

Assam

44.60

31.48

38

Orissa

2.00

6.66

22

EFFECT ON SCHEDULED CASTES

Ratio of Representation

Legislature

Population

Under the

Under the

Ratio

Government of

proposed

India Act, 1935

scheme

Central

14.30

7.60

20

Madras

16.50

13.90

30

Bombay

9.60

8.50

28

Bengal

12.60

12.00

25

U.P.

21.40

8.70

29

Punjab

4.40

4.50

9

C.P.

20.20

17.80

34

Bihar

13.80

9.80

28

Assam

8.70

6.50

20

Orissa

17.60

10.00

36

Sind

4.20

Nil.

19

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

373

EFFECT ON INDIAN CHRISTIANS

Ratio of Representation

Legislature

Population

Under the

Under the

Ratio

Government of

proposed

India Act, 1935

scheme

Central

1.16

3.00

3

Madras

4.10

4.20

5

Bombay

1.70

1.70

2

Bengal

0.19

0.80

1

U.P.

0.24

0.90

1

Punjab

1.70

1.14

2

C.P.

0.35

Nil

1

Bihar

1.70

0.66

2

Assam

0.48

0.90

2

Orissa

0.37

0.16

2

Sind

0.29

Nil

1

EFFECT ON SIKHS

Ratio of Representation

Legislature

Population

Under the

Under the

Ratio

Government of

proposed

India Act, 1935

scheme

Centre

1.50

2.40

4

Punjab

13.20

18.29

21

EFFECT ON HINDUS

Population

Ratio of Representation

Legislature

Ratio

Under the

Under the

Government of

proposed

India Act, 1935

scheme

Bengal

30.00

20.00

33

Punjab

22.10

20.00

28

Sind

23.80

31.60

40

VII

PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE PROPOSALS

I may now proceed to state the principles on which this distribution has
been made. They are :

(1) Majority Rule is untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice.
A majority community may be conceded a relative majority of
representation but it can never claim an absolute majority.*

*1 have not framed any scheme of representation for the North-West Frontier province as the
minority is so small that even the Principle of relative majority cannot help it.

374

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(2) The relative majority of representation given to a majority community
in the legislature should not be so large as to enable the majority
to establish its rule with the help of the smallest minorities.

(3) The distribution of seats should be so made that a combination of
the majority and one of the major minorities should not give the
combine such a majority as to make them impervious to the interest
of the minorities.

(4) The distribution should be so made that if all the minorities combine
they could, without depending on the majority, form a government
of their own.

(5) The weightage taken from the majority should be distributed among
the minorities in inverse proportion to their social standing, economic
position and educational condition so that a minority which is large
and which has a better social, educational and economic standing gets
a lesser amount of weightage than a minority whose numbers are
less and whose educational, economic and social position is inferior
to that of the others.

If I may say so, the representation is a balanced representation. No
one community is placed in a position to dominate others by reason of its
numbers. The Muslim objection to the Hindu majority and the Hindu and
Sikh objections to the Muslim majority are completely eliminated, both in
the Central as well as in the Provinces.

VIII

NATURE OF THE ELECTORATE

With regard to the question of electorates the following propositions
should be accepted :

(1) Joint electorate or separate electorate is a matter of machinery for
achieving a given purpose. It is not a matter of principle.

(2) The purpose is to enable a minority to select candidates to the
Legislature who will be real and not nominal representatives of the
minority.

(3) While separate electorate gives an absolute guarantee to the minority,
that its representatives will be no others except those who enjoy
its confidence, a system of joint electorates which will give equal
protection to the minorities should not be overlooked.

(4) A Four-member constituency, with a right to the minorities to have
a double vote and requiring a minimum percentage of minority votes,
may be considered as a possible substitute.

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

375

IX

MATTERS NOT COVERED

(i) Question of Special Safeguards

There are other demands made on behalf of particular minorities such as :

(1) Provision of a Statutory Officer to report on the condition of minorities.

(2) Statutory provision of State aid for education, and

(3) Statutory provision for land settlement. But they are not of a communal
character, I do not therefore wish to enlarge upon them here.

(ii) Aboriginal Tribes

It will be obvious that my proposals do not cover the Aboriginal Tribes
although they are larger in number than the Sikhs, Anglo Indians, Indian
Christians and Parsees. I may state the reasons why I have omitted them
from my scheme. The Aboriginal Tribes have not as yet developed any political
sense to make the best use of their political opportunities and they may easily
become mere instruments in the hands either of a majority or a minority and
thereby disturb the balance without doing any good to themselves. In the
present stage of their development it seems to me that the proper thing to
do for these backward communities is to establish a Statutory Commission to
administer what are now called the ‘excluded areas’ on the same basis as was
done in the case of the South African Constitution. Every Province in which
these excluded areas are situated should be compelled to make an annual
contribution of a prescribed amount for the administration of these areas.

(iii) Indian States

It will also be noticed that my proposals do not include the Indian States.
I am not opposed to the inclusion of the Indian States, provided the terms
and conditions of inclusion are such —

(1) that the dichotomy of divided sovereignty between British India and
Indian States is completely done away with,

(2) that the judicial and political boundaries which separate British India
from Indian States will disappear, that there will be no such entities
as British India or Indian States and in their place there will be only
one entity namely India, and

(3) that the terms and conditions of inclusion do not prevent India from
having full and plenary powers of a Dominion. I have worked out a
scheme for the fusion of the Indian States and British India, which
will permit the realization of these objects. I do not wish to overburden
this address with the details of the plan. For the moment, it is better
if British India marches to her goal without complicating its progress
by an entanglement with the Indian States.

376

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

X

PAKISTAN IN THE LIGHT OF PROPOSALS

My proposals are for an United India. They are made in the hope that the
Muslims will accept them in preference to Pakistan as providing better security
than Pakistan does. I am not against Pakistan, I believe it is founded on principle
of self-determination, which it is now too late to question. I am prepared to
give them the benefit of the principle, on condition that the Muslims do not
deny the benefit of the principles to the Non-Muslim residents of the Area.
But I believe, I am entitled to draw the attention of the Muslims to another
and a better plan of security. I claim that my plan is better than the plan of
Pakistan. Let me state the points which tell in favour of my plan. They are :

(i) Under my proposal the danger of a communal majority, which is the
basis of Pakistan is removed,

(ii) Under my proposal the weightage at present enjoyed by the Muslims
is not disturbed.

(iii) The position of Muslims in the Non-Pakistan Provinces is greatly
strengthened by an increase in their representation, which they may
not get if Pakistan comes and which will leave them in a more helpless
condition than they are in at present.

XI

A WORD TO HINDUS

Much of the difficulty over the Communal Question is due to the insistance
of the Hindus that the rule of majority is sacrosanct and that it must be
maintained at all costs. The Hindu does not seem to be aware of the fact that
there is another rule, which is also operative in fields where important disputes
between individual and nations arise and that rule is a rule of unanimity. If he
will take the trouble to examine the position he will realise that such a rule is
not a fiction, but it does exist. Let him take the Jury System. In the jury trial
the principle is unanimity. The decision is binding upon the judge only if the
verdict of the jury is unanimous. Let him take another illustration that of the
League of Nations. What was the rule for decisions in the League of Nations ?
The rule was a rule of unanimity. It is obvious that if the principle of unanimity
was accepted by the Hindus as a rule of decision in the Legislature and in
the Executive there would be no such thing as a Communal Problem in India.

One may well ask the Hindu that if he is not prepared to concede constitutional
safeguards to the minorities, is he prepared to agree to the rule of unanimity ?
Unfortunately he is not prepared to accept either.

About the rule of majority the Hindu is not prepared to admit any
limitations. The majority he wants is an absolute majority. He will not be
satisfied with relative majority. He should consider whether his insistance
on absolute majority is fair proposition, which political philosophers can
accept. He is not aware that even the constitution of the United States does

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

377

not lend support to the absolutistic rule of majority rule on which the Hindu
has been insisting upon.

Let me illustrate the point from the constitution of the United States.
Take the clause embodying Fundamental Rights. What does that clause
mean ? It means that, matters included in Fundamental Rights are of such
supreme concern that a mere majority rule is not enough to interfere with
them. Take another illustration also from the Constitution of the United
States. The Constitution says that no part of the Constitution shall be altered
unless the proposition is carried by three-fourths majority and ratified by the
States. What does this show ? It shows that the United States Constitution
recognizes for certain purposes mere majority rule is not competent.

All these cases are of course familiar to many a Hindu. The pity of it is,
he does not read from them the correct lesson. If he did, he would realize
that the rule of the majority rule is not as sacrosanct a principle as he thinks
it is. The majority rule is not accepted as a principle but is tolerated as a
rule. I might also state why it is tolerated. It is tolerated for two reasons;
(1) because the majority is always a political majority and (2) because the
decision of a political majority accepts and absorbs so much of the point of
view of the minority that the minority does not care to rebel against the
decision.

In India, the majority is not a political majority. In India the majority is
born ; it is not made. That is the difference between a communal majority
and a political majority. A political majority is not a fixed or a permanent
majority. It is a majority which is always made, unmade and remade. A
communal majority is a permanent majority fixed in its attitude. One can
destroy it, but one cannot transform it. If there is so much objection to
a political majority, how very fatal must be the objection to a communal
majority ?

It may be open to the Hindus to ask Mr. Jinnah, why in 1930 when he
formulated his fourteen points he insisted upon the principle of majority
rule to such an extent that one of the fourteen points stipulated that in
granting weightage, limits should be placed whereby a majority shall not
be reduced to a minority or equality. It may be open to the Hindus to ask
Mr. Jinnah, if he is in favour of a Muslim majority in Muslim Provinces,
why he is opposed to a Hindu Majority in the Centre ? The Hindu
must however realize that these posers may lead to the conclusion, that
Mr. Jinnah’s position is inconsistent. They cannot lead to the affirmation of
the principle of majority rule.

The abandonment of the principle of majority rule in politics cannot affect
the Hindus very much in other walks of life. As an element in social life they
will remain a majority. They will have the monopoly of trade and business
which they enjoy. They will have the monopoly of the property which they

378

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

have. My proposals do not ask the Hindus to accept the principle of unanimity.
My proposals do not ask the Hindus to abandon the principle of majority
rule. All I am asking them is to be satisfied with a relative majority. Is it
too much for them to concede this ?

Without marking any such sacrifice the Hindu majority is not justified in
representing to the outside world that the minorities are holding up India’s
Freedom. This false propaganda will not pay. For the minorities are doing
nothing of the kind. They are prepared to accept freedom and the dangers
in which they likely to be involved; provided they granted satisfactory
safeguards. This gesture of the minorities is not to be treated as a matter
for which Hindus need not be grateful. It may well be contrasted with what
happened in Ireland. Mr. Redmond, the leader of the Irish Nationalists once
told Carson, the leader of Ulster; “Consent to United Ireland, Ask for any
safeguard and they shall be granted to you”. He is reported to have turned
round and said : “Damn your safeguards ; we don’t want to be ruled by you”.
The minorities in India have not said that. They are ready to be satisfied
with safeguards. I ask the Hindus Is this not worth a mass ? I am sure it is.

XII

CONCLUSION

These are some of the proposals I have had in mind for the solution of
the Communal Problem. They do not commit the All-India Scheduled Castes
Federation. They do not even commit me. In putting them forth, I am
doing nothing more than exploring a new way. My emphasis is more on the
principle, I have enunciated, than on the actual proposals. If the principles
are accepted then I am sure the solution of the Communal Question will
not be as baffling as it has been in the past.

The problem of solving the Indian deadlock is not easy. I remember reading
a historian describing the condition of Germany before the Confederation
of 1867 as one of ‘ Divinely Ordained Confusion’. Whether that was true of
Germany or not, it seems to me that they form a very accurate description
of the present conditions of India. Germany did get out of this confusion,
if not at one stroke at least by successive stages until just before the war
she became a unified people, unified in mind, unified in outlook and unified
by belief in a common destiny. India has not so far succeeded in evolving
order out of her confusion. It is not that she had no opportunities to do
so. In fact, there have been quite a number. The first opportunity came in
1927, when Lord Birkenhead gave a challenge to Indians asking them to
produce a constitution for India. That challenge was taken up. A committee
was formed to frame a constitution. A constitution was produced and was
known as ‘ The Nehru Constitution’. It was, however, not accepted by Indians
and was buried without remorse. A second opportunity presented itself to
Indians in 1930, when they assembled at the Round Table Conference.
There again, Indians failed to play their part and write out their own

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

379

Constitution. A third attempt is the one recently made by the Sapru
Committee. The proposals of this committee too have fallen flat.

There is neither enthusiasm nor optimism left to indulge in another
attempt. One is persued by a sense of fatality, which suggests that as
every attempt is doomed to failure, none need be made. At the same time
I feel that no Indian ought to be so down hearted or so callous as to let the
deadlock stink, as though it was a dead dog, and say that he is prepared
to do nothing more than be a mere witness to the political dog-fight that is
going on in this country. The failures of the past need not daunt any body.
They do not daunt me. For, I have a feeling that though it is true that all
attempts to reach an agreement on the communal question have failed, the
failure have been due not so much to any inherent fault of the Indians as
they have been due to a wrong approach. I feel confident that my proposals,
if considered dispassionately, should be found acceptable. They constitute a
new approach and as such I commend them to my countrymen.

Before I conclude, I must, however, warn my critics that they may be
able to amend my proposals in some respects ; but it will not be easy to
reject them. If they do reject them, the first thing they shall have to do is
to controvert the principles on which they are based.

10

STATES AND MINORITIES

What are Their Rights and How to
Secure Them in the Constitution of

Free India

Memorandum on the Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes
submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of
the All India Scheduled Castes Federation

Published: 1947

STATES AND MINORITIES

PREFACE

Soon after it became definite that the framing of the future
Constitution of India was to be entrusted to a Constituent Assembly,
the Working Committee of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation
asked me to prepare a Memorandum on the Safeguards for the
Scheduled Castes for being submitted to the Constituent Assembly,
on behalf of the Federation. I very gladly undertook the task. The
results of my labour are contained in this brochure.

The Memorandum defines Fundamental Rights, Minority Rights
and Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes. Those who hold the view
that the Scheduled Castes are not a minority might say that in this
matter I have gone beyond prescribed bounds. The view that the
Scheduled Castes are not a minority is a new dispensation issued on
behalf of the High and Mighty Hindu Majority which the Scheduled
Castes are asked to submit to. The spokesmen of the Majority have
not cared to define its scope and its meaning. Anyone with a fresh
and free mind, reading it as a general proposition, would be justified
in saying that it is capable of double interpretation. I interpret
it to mean that the Scheduled Castes are more than a minority
and that any protection given to the citizens and to the minorities
will not be adequate for the Scheduled Castes. In other words it
means that their social, economic and educational condition is so
much worse than that of the citizens and other minorities that in
addition to protection they would get as citizens and as minorities
the Scheduled Castes would require special safeguards against

384

PREFACE

the tyranny and discrimination of the majority. The other
interpretation is that the Scheduled Castes differ from a minority
and therefore they are not entitled to the protection which can
be claimed by a minority. This interpretation appears to be such
unmitigated nonsense that no sane man need pay any attention to
it. The Scheduled Castes must be excused if they ignore it. Those
who accept my interpretation of the view that the Scheduled Castes
are not a minority will, I am sure, agree with me that I am justified
in demanding for the Scheduled Castes, all the benefit of the
Fundamental Rights of citizens, all the benefit of the Provisions for
the Protection of the minorities and in addition special Safeguards.

The memorandum was intended to be submitted to the Constituent
Assembly. There was no intention to issue it to the public. But
my caste Hindu friends who have had the opportunity to read the
typescript have pressed me to give it a wider circulation. Although
it is meant for members of the Constituent Assembly, I do not see
any breach of decorum in making it available to the general public.
I have therefore agreed to fall in line with their wishes.

Instead of setting out my ideas in general terms, I have drafted
the Memorandum in the form of Articles of the Constitution. I am
sure that for the sake of giving point and precision this method
will be found to be more helpful. For the benefit of the Working
Committee of the Scheduled Castes Federation, I had prepared certain
explanatory notes and other statistical material. As the notes and
the statistical material are likely to be useful to the general reader,
I have thought it better to print them along with the Memorandum
rather than keep them back.

Among the many problems the Constituent Assembly has to
face, there are two which are admittedly most difficult. One is
the problem of the Minorities and the other is the problem of
the Indian States. I have been a student of the problem of the
Indian States and I hold some very definite and distinct views
on the subject. It was my hope that the Constituent Assembly
would elect me to the States Committee Evidently, it has found
men of superior calibre for the work. It may also be because I
am one of those who are outside the tabernacle and therefore
undesirable. I am not sorry to find myself left out. My only regret
is that I have lost an opportunity to which I was looking forward

PREFACE

385

for placing my views for the consideration of the Committee. I have
therefore chosen to do the next best thing — namely, to incorporate
them in this brochure along with the Rights of Citizens, of Minorities
and of the Scheduled Castes so that a wider public may know what
they are, may value them for what they are worth and may make
such use of them as it may deem fit.

“Raja Graha” B. R. AMBEDKAR

Dadar, Bombay- 14

15-3-47

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF INDIA

PROPOSED PREAMBLE

We the people of the territories of British India distributed into
(For explanation, administrative units called Provinces and Centrally
see page 405) Administered Areas and of the territories of the Indian

States with a view to form a more perfect union of these territories do —

ordain that the Provinces and the Centrally Administered Areas (to be
hereafter designated as States) and the Indian States shall be joined
together into a Body Politic for Legislative, Executive and Administrative
purposes under the style The United States of India and that the union
so formed shall be indissoluble

and that with a view :

(i) to secure the blessings both of self-government and good government
throughout the united States of India to ourselves and to our
posterity,

(ii) to maintain the right of every subject to life, liberty and pursuit
of happiness and to free speech and free exercise of religion,

(iii) to remove social, political and economic inequality by providing
better opportunities to the submerged classes,

(iv) to make it possible for every subject to enjoy freedom from want
and freedom from fear, and

(v) to provide against internal disorder and external aggression,

establish this Constitution for the United States of India.

388

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

PROPOSED ARTICLE I

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Article I, Section I — Admission of Indian States into the Union :

Clause 1. Qualified Indian States and their admission into the Union.

Clause 2. Relation of Qualified Indian States which have not entered
the Union and of the Disqualified Indian States to the
United States of India.

Clause 3. Power of the United States of India to reorganise the
territory of the Disqualified Indian States into suitable
Administrative Units with a view to qualify them for
admission into the Union as States of the Union.

Clause 4. Formation of new States within the Union.

Article I, Section II — United States of India and New Territory :

Clause 1. Incorporation of Foreign States into the Union.

Clause 2. Acquisition of new territory by the United States of India
and its retention as unincorporated territory of the Union.

STATES AND MINORITIES

389

ARTICLE I— Section I

ADMISSION OF INDIAN STATES INTO THE UNION

Clause I

The United States of India may, on application and on fulfilment of
. the terms prescribed by an Enabling Act of the Union
see^ page^OS 10n ' Legislature laying down the form of the Constitution
admit an Indian State into the Union provided the Indian
State seeking admission is a Qualified State.

For the purposes of this clause a list of Qualified Indian States shall be
drawn up. A State shall not be deemed to be a Qualified State unless it is
proved that it is of a standard size prescribed by the Union Legislature and
is endowed with natural resources capable of supporting a descent standard
of living for its people and can, by reason of its revenues and population
function as an autonomous State, protect itself against external aggression,
maintain Law and Order against internal disturbance and guarantee to
its subjects minimum standards of administration and welfare which are
expected from a modern State.

Clause 2

The territory of an Indian State which is a Qualified State but which
has not entered the Union and the territory of the Indian States which
are disqualified shall be treated as incorporated territories of the United
States of India and shall at all times form integral parts thereof and shall
be subject to such parts of the Constitution of the United States of India
as may be prescribed by the Union Legislature.

Clause 3

The United States of India shall have power to reform, rearrange,
redistribute and amalgamate the territories of Disqualified Indian States
into suitable Administrative Units for admission into the Union as States
of the Union.

Clause 4

After a State has been admitted into the Union as a State no new State
shall be formed or created within its jurisdiction nor any new State shall
be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States without
the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the
Union Legislature.

ARTICLE I— Section II

Clause 1

The United States of India may admit into the Union any territory which
forms a natural part of India or which is on the border of India on terms

390

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

and conditions mutually agreed upon. Provided that the terms shall not

, be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United

(Tor explanation,

see page 406 ) States of India and the admission is recommended by
the Legislatures of one half of the States comprising the
United States of India in the form of a resolution.

Clause 2

The United States of India may acquire territory and may treat it as
unincorporated territory. The provisions of the Constitution of the United
States of India shall not apply to the unincorporated territory unless a
provision to the contrary is made by the Legislature of the United States
of India.

STATES AND MINORITIES

391

PROPOSED ARTICLE II

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Article II, Section I — Fundamental Rights of Citizens.

Article II, Section II — Remedies against Invasion of Fundamental Rights:
Clause 1. Judicial Protection.

Clause 2. Protection against Unequal Treatment.

Clause 3 Protection against Discrimination.

Clause 4. Protection against Economic Exploitation.

Article II, Section III — Provisions for the Protection of Minorities:

Clause 1. Protection against Communal Executive.

Clause 2. Protection against Social and Official Tyranny.

Clause 3. Protection against Social Boycott.

Clause 4. Authority and obligation of the Union and State
Governments to spend money for public purposes including
purposes beneficial to Minorities.

Article II, Section IV — Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes.

Part I — Guarantees:

Clause 1. Right to Representation in the Legislature and in the Local
Bodies,

Clause 2. Right to Representation in the Executive.

Clause 3. Right to Representation in Services.

Part II — Special Responsibilities;

Clause 1. For Higher Education.

Clause 2. For Separate Settlements.

Part III — Sanction for Safeguards and Amendment of Safeguards :
Clause 1. Safeguards to be embodied in the Constitution.

Clause 2. Amendment of Safeguards.

Part IV — Protection of Scheduled Castes in Indian States.

Part V — Interpretation.

392

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE II— Section I

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS

The Constitution of the United States of India shall recognize the
following as Fundamental Rights of citizenship :

1. All persons born or naturalized within its territories are citizens of

Fundamental Rights, the United States of India and of the State wherein
(For explanation, see they reside. Any privilege or disability arising out
page 406) 0 f ran ]j ; birth, person, family, religion or religious

usage and custom is abolished.

2. No State shall make or enforce any law or custom which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens ; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty and property without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of law.

3. All citizens are equal before the law and possess equal civic rights.
Any existing enactment, regulation, order, custom or interpretation of law
by which any penalty, disadvantage or disability is imposed upon or any
discrimination is made against any citizen shall, as from the day on which
this Constitution comes into operation, cease to have any effect.

4. Whoever denies to any person, except for reasons by law applicable
to persons of all classes and regardless of their social status, the full
enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges
of inns, educational institutions, roads, paths, streets, tanks, wells and
other watering places, public conveyances on land, air or water, theatres
or other places of public amusement, resort or convenience, whether they
are dedicated to or maintained or licensed for the use of the public, shall
be guilty of an offence.

5. All citizens shall have equal access to all institutions, conveniences
and amenities maintained by or for the public.

6. No citizen shall be disqualified to hold any public office or exercise
any trade or calling by reason of his or her religion, caste, creed, sex or
social status.

7. (i) Every citizen has the right to reside in any part of India. No
law shall be made abridging the right of a citizen to reside except for
consideration of public order and morality.

(ii) Every citizen has the right to settle in any part of India, subject to
the production of a certificate of citizenship from the State of his origin.
The permission to settle shall not be refused or withdrawn except on
grounds specified in sub-clause (iv) of this clause.

STATES AND MINORITIES

393

(iii) The State in which a citizen wishes to settle may not impose any
special charge upon him in respect of such settlement other than the charge
imposed upon its own inhabitants. The maximum fees chargeable in respect
of permits for settlement shall be determined by laws made by the Union
Legislature.

(iv) The permission to settle may be refused or withdrawn by a State
from persons —

(а) who have been habitual criminals ;

(б) whose intention to settle is to alter the communal balance of the
State ;

(c) who cannot prove to the satisfaction of the State in which they wish
to settle that they have an assured means of subsistence and who
are likely to become or have become a permanent burden upon public
charity;

(' d ) whose State of origin refuses to provide adequate assistance for them
when requested to do so,

(v) Permission to settle may be made conditional upon the applicant being
capable of work and not having been a permanent charge upon public charity
in the place of his origin, and able to give security against unemployment.

(vi) Every expulsion must be confirmed by the Union Government.

(vii) Union Legislature shall define the difference between settlement and
residence and at the same time, prescribe regulations governing the political
and civil rights of persons during their residence.

8. The Union Government shall guarantee protection against persecution
of a community as well as against internal disorder or violence arising in
any part of India.

9. Subjecting a person to forced labour or to involuntary servitude shall
be an offence.

10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

11. The right of a citizen to vote shall not be denied or abridged on any
account other than immaturity, imprisonment and insanity.

12. No law shall be made abridging the freedom of Speech, of the Press,
of Association and of Assembly except for consideration of public order and
morality.

394

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

13. No Bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

14. The State shall guarantee to every Indian citizen liberty of conscience
and the free exercise of his religion including the right to profess, to preach
and to convert within limits compatible with public order and morality.

15. No person shall be compelled to become a member of any religious
association, submit to any religious instruction or perform any act of religion.
Subject to the foregoing provision, parents and guardians shall be entitled
to determine the religious education of children up to the age of 16 years.

16. No person shall incur any penalties of any kind whatsoever by reason
of his caste, creed or religion nor shall any person be permitted to refuse to
fulfil any obligation of citizenship on the ground of caste, creed or religion.

17. The State shall not recognise any religion as State religion.

18. Persons following a religion shall be guaranteed freedom of association
and shall have, if they so desire, the right to call upon the State to pass
legislation in terms approved by them making them into a body corporate.

19. Every religious association shall be free to regulate and administer
its affairs, within the limits of the laws applicable to all.

20. Religious associations shall be entitled to levy contributions on their
members who are willing to pay them if their law of incorporation permits
them to do so. No person may be compelled to pay taxes the proceeds of
which are specifically appropriated for the use of any religious community
of which he is not a member.

21. All offences under this section shall be deemed to be cognizable offences.
The Union Legislature shall make laws to give effect to such provisions as
require legislation for that purpose and to prescribe punishment for those
acts which are declared to be offences.

STATES AND MINORITIES

395

ARTICLE II— Section II

REMEDIES AGAINST INVASION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The United States of India shall provide :

Clause 1

(1) That the Judicial Power of India shall be vested in a Supreme Court.

aga/nst mTo ve ” ( 2 ) The Supreme Court shall have the power of

Tyranny. superintendence over all other Courts or officers

(For explanation, see exercising the powers of a Court, whether or not
page 406) such Courts or officers are subject to its appellate or

revisional jurisdiction.

(3) The Supreme Court shall have the power on the application of an
aggrieved party to issue what are called prerogative writs such as Hebeas
Corpus, Quo Warranto Prohibition, Certiorari and Mandamus, etc. For
purposes of such writs the Supreme Court shall be a Court of general
jurisdiction throughout India.

(4) The right to apply for a writ shall not be abridged or suspended unless
when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Clause 2

That the Authority of the Legislature and the Executive of the Union
Protection against ag we ]] as 0 f every State throughout India shall be

Unequal Treatment. subject to the following limitations :

(l 1 or explanation, see

pages 406-8)

It shall not be competent for any Legislature or Executive in India to
pass a law or issue an order, rule or regulation so as to violate the following
rights of the subjects of the State :

(1) to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence,
to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.

(2) to be eligible for entry into the civil and military employ and to all
educational institutions except for such conditions and limitations as may be
necessary to provide for the due and adequate representation of all classes
of the subjects of the State.

(3) to be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations,
advantages, facilities, educational institutions, privileges of inns, rivers,
streams, wells, tanks, roads, paths, streets, public conveyances on land, air
and water, theatres and other places of public resort or amusement except
for such conditions and limitations applicable alike to all subjects of every
race, class, caste, colour or creed.

(4) to be deemed fit for and capable of sharing without distinction the
benefits of any religious or charitable trust dedicated to or created, maintained
or licensed for the general public or for persons of the same faith and religion.

396

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(5) to claim full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security
of persons and property as is enjoyed by other subjects regardless of any usage or
custom or usage or custom based on religion and be subject to like punishment,
pains and penalties and to none other.

Clause 3

(1) Discrimination against citizens by Government officers in Public

Protection against administration or by private employers in factories and
Discrimination. commercial concerns on the ground of race or creed or social
(For explanation, s t a tus shall be treated as an offence. The jurisdiction to try
see page 408) such cases shall be vested in a tribunal to be created for

the purpose.

(2) The Union Legislature shall have the right as well as the obligation to
give effect to this provision by appropriate legislation.

Clause 4

The United States of India shall declare as a part of the law of its constitution —

(1) That industries which are key industries or which may be declared to be
Protection key industries shall be owned and run by the State ;

against Economic

Exploitation. (2) That industries which are not key industries but

(For explanation, which are basic industries shall be owned by the State and

see pages 408-12) shall be run by the State or by Corporations established

by the State ;

(3) That Insurance shall be a monopoly of the State and that the State shall
compel every adult citizen to take out a life insurance policy commensurate with
his wages as may be prescribed by the Legislature ;

(4) That agriculture shall be State Industry;

(5) That State shall acquire the subsisting rights in such industries, insurance
and agricultural land held by private individuals, whether as owners, tenants or
mortgagees and pay them compensation in the form of debenture equal to the
value of his or her right in the land. Provided that in reckoning the value of land,
plant or security no account shall be taken of any rise therein due to emergency,
of any potential or unearned value or any value for compulsory acquisition;

(6) The State shall determine how and when the debenture holder shall be
entitled to claim cash payment;

(7) The debenture shall be transferable and inheritable property but neither
the debenture holder nor the transferee from the original holder nor his heir shall
be entitled to claim the return of the land or interest in any industrial concern
acquired by the State or be entitled to deal with it in any way ;

(8) The debenture-holder shall be entitled to interest on his debenture at such
rate as may be defined by law, to be paid by the State in cash or in kind as the
State may deem fit;

STATES AND MINORITIES

397

(9) Agricultural industry shall be organized on the following basis :

(i) The State shall divide the land acquired into farms of standard size
and let out the farms for cultivation to residents of the village as
tenants (made up of group of families) to cultivate on the following
conditions :

(а) The farm shall be cultivated as a collective farm ;

(б) The farm shall be cultivated in accordance with rules and
directions issued by Government;

(c) The tenants shall share among themselves in the manner
prescribed the produce of the farm left after the payment of
charges properly leviable on the farm ;

(ii) The land shall be let out to villagers without distinction of caste or
creed and in such manner that there will be no landlord, no tenant
and no landless labourer ;

(iii) It shall be the obligation of the State to finance the cultivation of the
collective farms by the supply of water, draft animals, implements,
manure, seeds, etc.;

(iv) The State shall be entitled to —

(a) to levy the following charges on the produce of the farm :

(i) a portion for land revenue ;

(ii) a portion to pay the debenture-holders ; and

(iii) a portion to pay for the use of capital goods supplied ; and

( b ) to prescribe penalties against tenants who break the conditions
of tenancy or wilfully neglect to make the best use of the means
of cultivation offered by the State or otherwise act prejudicially
to the scheme of collective farming ;

(10) The scheme shall be brought into operation as early as possible but
in no case shall the period extend beyond the tenth year from the date of
the Constitution coming into operation.

398

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE II— Section III

PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORITIES
The Constitution of the United States of India shall provide :

Clause 1

(1) That the Executive — Union or State — shall be non-Parliamentary in

Protection against the sense that it shall not be removable before the
Communal Executive. f h Leeislature

. UCX 111 vjt tile UC&iDlatUi C.

(lor explanation, see
pages 412-15)

(2) Members of the Executive if they are not members of the Legislature
shall have the right to sit in the Legislature, speak, vote and answer questions.

(3) The Prime Minister shall be elected by the whole House by single
transferable vote.

(4) The representatives of the different minorities in the Cabinet shall
be elected by members of each minority community in the Legislature by
single transferable vote.

(5) The representatives of the majority community in the Executive shall
be elected by the whole House by single transferable vote.

(6) A member of the Cabinet may resign his post on a censure motion or
otherwise but shall not be liable to be removed except on impeachment by
the House on the ground of corruption or treason.

Clause 2

(1) That there shall be appointed an Officer to be called the Superintendent
Protection against 0 f Minority Affairs,
social and official

tyranny. (2) His status shall be similar to that of the

(For explanation, see Auditor-General appointed under section 166 of the
page 416) Government of India Act of 1935 and removable in

like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court,

(3) It shall be the duty of the Superintendent to prepare an annual report
on the treatment of minorities by the public, as well as by the Governments,
Union and State and of any transgressions of safeguards or any miscarriage
of justice due to communal bias by Governments or their Officers.

(4) The Annual Report of the Superintendent shall be placed on the
Table of the Legislatures — Union and State, and the Governments — Union
and State, shall be bound to provide time for the discussion of the Report.

Clause 3

That Social Boycott, Promoting or Instigating a Social Boycott or
Protection against Threatening a Social Boycott as defined below shall be
social boycott. declared to be an offence :

(For explanation,
see pages 416-18)

STATES AND MINORITIES

399

(i) Boycott Defined. — A person shall be deemed to boycott another who —

(а) refuses to let or use or occupy any house or land, or to deal with,
work for hire, or do business with another person, or to render to
him or receive from him any service, or refuses to do any of the said
things on the terms on which such things should commonly be done
in the ordinary course of business, or

(б) abstains from such social, professional or business relations as he
would, having regard to such existing customs in the community
which are not inconsistent with any fundamental right or other rights
of citizenship declared in the Constitution, ordinarily maintain with
such person, or

(c) in any way injures, annoys or interferes with such other person in
the exercise of his lawful rights.

(ii) Offence of Boycotting. — Whoever, in consequence of any person having
done any act which he was legally entitled to do or of his having omitted to
do any act which he was legally entitled to omit to do, or with intent to cause
any person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to
do any act which be is legally entitled to do, or with intent to cause harm
to such person in body, mind, reputation or property, or in his business or
means of living, boycotts such person or any person in whom such person is
interested, shall be guilty of offence of boycotting.

Provided that no offence shall be deemed to have been committed under
this Section, if the Court is satisfied that the accused person has not acted
at the instigation of or in collusion with any other person or in pursuance of
any conspiracy or of any agreement or combination to boycott.

(iii) Offence of Instigating or Promoting a Boycott —

Whoever —

(а) publicly makes or publishes or circulates a proposal for, or

(б) makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with
intent to, or which he has reason to believe to be likely to cause, or

(c) in any other way instigates or promotes the boycotting of any person
or class of persons, shall be guilty of the offence of instigating or
promoting a boycott.

Explanation — An offence under this clause shall be deemed to have been
committed although the person affected or likely to be affected by any action
of the nature referred to herein is not designated by name or class but only
by his acting or abstaining from acting in some specified manner.

(iv) Offence of Threatening a Boycott. — Whoever, in consequence of any
person having done any act which he was legally entitled to do or of his
having omitted to do any act which he was legally entitled to omit to do,
or with intent to cause any person to do any act which he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do,

400

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

threatens to cause such person or any person in whom such person is
interested, to be boycotted shall be guilty of the offence threatening a boycott.

Exception . — It is not boycott —

(i) to do any act in furtherance of a bona fide labour dispute ;

(ii) to do any act in the ordinary course of business competition.

(2) All these offences shall be deemed to be cognizable offences. The Union
Legislature shall make laws prescribing punishment for these offences.

Clause 4

That the Power of the Central and Provincial Governments to make grants
Power of Governments for any purpose, notwithstanding that the purpose

to spend money for any j s no t one f or w hich the Union or State Legislature
purposes connected

with the Government
of India including
purposes beneficial to
the Minorities.

(For explanation,
see page 418)

as the case may be may make laws, shall not be
abridged or taken away.

STATES AND MINORITIES

401

ARTICLE II— Section IV

SAFEGUARDS FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES
PART I — Guarantees

The Constitution of the United States of India shall guarantee to the Scheduled
Right to Castes the following Rights:

Representation in
the Legislature.

(For explanation,
see pages 419-24)

Clause 1

Right to Representation in the Legislature

(1) Quantum of Representation. — (a) (i) The Scheduled Castes shall have
minimum representation in the Legislature — Union and State — and if there be
a group Constitution then in the group Legislature equal to the ratio of their
population to the total population. Provided that no other minority is allowed to
claim more representation than what is due to it on the basis of its population.

(ii) The Scheduled Castes of Sind and N.W.F. Provinces shall be given their
due share of representation.

(iii) Weightage where it becomes necessary to reduce a huge communal
majority to reasonable dimensions shall come out of the share of the majority.
In no case shall it be at the cost of another minority community.

(iv) Weightage carved out from the share of majority shall not be assigned
to one community only. But the same shall be divided among all minority
communities equally or in inverse proportion to their —

(1) economic position,

(2) social status, and

(3) educational advance.

(b) There should be no representation to special interests. But if the same
is allowed it must be taken out of the share of representation given to that
community to which the special interest belongs.

(2) Method of Election —

(A) For Legislative Bodies

(a) The system of election introduced by the Poona Pact shall be abolished.

(b) In its place, the system of Separate Electorates shall be substituted.

(c) Franchise shall be adult franchise.

{d) The system of voting shall be cumulative.

(B) For Local Bodies

The principles for determining the quantum of representation and the Method
of election for Municipalities and Local Boards shall be the same as that adopted
for the Union and State Legislatures.

402

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Clause 2

(1) The Scheduled Castes shall have minimum representation in the

Right to Executive — Union and State — and if there be a group

Representation in the Constitution then in the group Executive equal to the
Executive. ratio of their population to the total population. Provided

(For explanation, see that no minority community is allowed to claim more
pages 424-25) than its population ratio.

(2) Weightage where it becomes necessary to reduce a huge majority to
reasonable dimensions shall come out of the share of the majority community.
In no case shall it be at the cost of another minority community,

(3) Weightage carved out from the share of the majority shall not be
assigned to one community only But the same shall be divided among all
minorities equally or in inverse proportion to :

(i) their economic position.

(ii) social status, and

(iii) educational advance.

Clause 3

Right to Representation in the Services

(a) The quantum of representation of the Scheduled Castes in the Services
Right to Representation shall be as follows :

in services.

(For explanation, see
page 425)

(i) In the Union Services. — In proportion to the ratio of their population
to the total population in India or British India as the case may be.

(ii) In the State and Group Services. — In proportion to their population
in the State or Union.

(iii) In the Municipal and Local Board Services. — In proportion to their
population in the Municipal and Local Boards areas :

Provided that no minority community is allowed to claim more than
its population ratio of representation in the Services.

( b ) Their right to representation in the Services shall not be curtailed
except by conditions relating to minimum qualifications, education, age, etc.

(c) The conditions prescribed for entry in Services shall not abrogate any
of the concessions given to the Scheduled Castes by the Government of India
in their Resolutions of 1942 and 1945.

0 d ) The method of filling up the vacancies shall conform to the rules
prescribed in the Government of India Resolutions of 1942 and 1946.

(e) On every Public Services Commission or a Committee constituted for
filling vacancies, the Scheduled Castes shall have at least one representative.

PART II — Special Responsibilities

That the United States of India shall undertake the following special

Provisions for responsibilities for the betterment of the Scheduled Castes :

Higher Education
(For explanation,
see page 425)

STATES AND MINORITIES

403

Clause 1

(1) Governments — Union and State — shall be required to assume financial
responsibility for the higher education of the Scheduled Castes and shall
be required to make adequate provisions in their budgets. Such Provisions
shall form the first charge on the Education Budget of the Union and State
Government.

(2) The responsibility for finding money for secondary and college education
of the Scheduled Castes in India shall be upon the State Governments and
the different States shall make a provision in their annual budgets for the
said purpose in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes to the
total budget of the States.

(3) The responsibility for finding money for foreign education of the
Scheduled Castes shall be the responsibility of the Union Government and
the Union Government shall make a provision of rupees 10 lakhs per year
in its annual budget in that behalf.

(4) These special grants shall be without prejudice to the right of
the Scheduled Castes to share in the expenditure incurred by the State
Government for the advancement of primary education for the people of
the State.

1. The following provision shall be made in the Constitution of the Union
Provision for New Government :

Settlements.

(For explanation,
see pages 425-26)

(i) There shall be a Settlement Commission under the new Constitution to
hold uncultivated lands belonging to the State in trust for Settlement
of the Scheduled Castes in separate villages.

(ii) The Union Government shall set apart annually a fund of Rs. 5
crores for the purpose of promoting the scheme of settlement.

(iii) That the Commission shall have the power to purchase any land
offered for sale and use it for the said purpose.

2. The Union Government shall from time to time pass such legislation
as may be necessary for the Commission to carry out its functions.

PART III — Sanction for Safeguards and Amendment of Safeguards

The Constitution of the United States shall provide that —

The United States of India undertakes to give the safeguards contained

Clause 2

Clause 1

Sanction for
safeguards.

(For explanation,
see pages 426-28)

in Article II Section IV a place in the Constitution and
make them a part of the Constitutional Law of India.

404

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Clause 2

The provisions for the Scheduled Castes shall not be altered, amended or

Mode of Amendment abrogated except in the following manner :
of safeguards.

(For explanation, see
page 428).

Any amendment or abrogation of Section IV of Article II or any part thereof
relating to the Scheduled Castes shall only be made by a Resolution passed in the
manner prescribed below by the more Popular Chamber of the Union Legislature :

(i) Any proposal for amendment or abrogation shall be initiated in the form
of a Resolution in the more Popular Chamber of the Union Legislature.

(ii) No such Resolution shall be moved —

(а) unless 25 years have elapsed after the Constitution has come
into operation and has been worked ; and

(б) unless six months’ notice has been given to the House by the
mover of his intention to move such a Resolution.

(iii) On the passing of such a Resolution, the Legislature shall be dissolved and
a new election held.

(iv) The original Resolution in the form in which it was passed by the previous
Legislature shall be moved afresh in the same House of the newly elected
Union Legislature.

(v) The Resolution shall not be deemed to have been carried unless it is
passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House and also
two-thirds of members of the Scheduled Castes who have been returned
through separate electorates.

PART IV — Protection of Scheduled Castes in the Indian States

„ „ . „ The Constitution of the United States shall provide that

Safeguards tor r

Scheduled Castes in the admission of the Indian States into the Union shall be

Indian States. subject to the following condition :

(For explanation,
see page 428)

“All provisions relating to the Scheduled Castes contained in Section IV of Article II
of the Constitution of the United States of India shall be extended to the Scheduled
Castes in the Indian States. Such a provision in the Constitution of an Indian States
shall be a condition precedent for its admission into the Union.”

PART V — Interpretation

I. For the purposes of Article II the Scheduled Castes, as defined in the Government
Castes of India Scheduled Caste Order, 1936, issued under the Government

ci Minority

(For explanation, of India Act, 1935, shall be deemed to be a minority,
see page 428)

II. For the purposes of Article II a Caste which is a Scheduled Caste in one

Scheduled Castes and
change of Domicile.
(For explanation, see
page 428)

State shall be treated as Scheduled Caste in all States of
the Union.

STATES AND MINORITIES

405

Appendix I

EXPLANATORY NOTES
Preamble

The Preamble gives constitutional shape and form to the Resolution on
objectives passed by the Constituent Assembly on Wednesday the 22nd
January 1947.

ARTICLE I— Section I

Clauses 1 to 4

The admission of the six hundred and odd Indian States into the Union
raises many difficult questions. The most difficult of them is the one which
relates to their admission into the Union. Every Indian State is claiming
to be a Sovereign State and is demanding to be admitted into the Union
in its own right. The Indian States fall into different classes from the view
of size, population, revenue and resources. It is obvious that every State
admitted into the Union as a State must have the capacity to bear the
burden of modern administration to maintain peace within its own borders
and to possess the resources necessary for the economic advancement of its
people. Otherwise, the United States of India is likely to be encumbered
with a large number of weak States which, instead of being a help to the
Central Government, will be a burden upon it. The Union Government with
such small and weak States as its units will never be able to pull its full
weight in an emergency. It is therefore obvious that it would be a grave
danger to the future safety of India if every Indian State were admitted into
the Union without any scrutiny of its capacity to bear the burden of modern
administration and maintaining internal peace. To avoid this danger, the
Article proceeds to divide the Indian States into two classes: (1) Qualified
Indian States and (2) Unqualified Indian States. It proposes that a list of
Qualified Indian States should be drawn up as a first step in the procedure
to be followed for the admission of the Indian States into the Union. A
Qualified Indian State will be admitted into the Union on an application
for admission and the fulfilment of the provisions of the Enabling Act which
the Union Legislature is authorized to pass for the purpose of requiring
an appropriate form of internal Government set up within the State which
will be in consonance to the principles underlying the Constitution of the
United States of India. The territory in the occupation of the Unqualified
Indian States will be treated as the territory of the United States of India
and will be reorganized into States of suitable sizes by the United States of
India. In the meantime those who are rulers of the territory shall continue to
administer the territory under the supervision of the United States of India.
The Act also declares that the Indian territory whether in the occupation
of British Indian Provinces or of the Indian States is one and integral and
will be so even though an Indian State has not entered into the Union.

406

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Clause 4 provides that once a State is admitted into the Union, its
integrity shall be maintained and it shall not be liable to sub-division except
in accordance with the provisions contained in the clause.

ARTICLE I— Section II

Clauses 1 and 2

Clause 1 permits the United States of India to incorporate States which are
independent but which are on the border and which desire to join the Union.

Clause 2 enables the United States of India to acquire territory and to
incorporate it or to treat it as separate territory.

ARTICLE II— Section I

The inclusion of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution requires no
justification. The necessity of Fundamental Rights is recognized in all
Constitutions old and new. The Fundamental Rights included in the Article are
borrowed from the Constitutions of various countries particularly from those
wherein the conditions are more or less analogous to those existing in India.

ARTICLE II— Section II

Clause 1

Rights are real only if they are accompanied by remedies. It is no use
giving rights if the aggrieved person has no legal remedy to which he can
resort when his rights are invaded. Consequently when the Constitution
guarantees rights it also becomes necessary to make provision to prevent the
Legislature and the Executive from overriding them. This function has been
usually assigned to the judiciary and the Courts have been made the special
guardians of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The clause does no
more than this. The clause proposes to give protection to the citizen against
Executive tyranny by investing the Judiciary with certain powers of inquisition
against the abuse of authority by the Executive. This power takes the form
of issue of writs. The High Courts in India possess these powers under the
Government of India and under their letters patent. These powers are however
subject to two limitations. In the first place the powers given by the Letters
Patent are available only to the High Courts in the Presidency Towns and
not to all. Secondly these powers are subject to laws made by the Indian
Legislature. Thirdly the powers given by the Government of India Act, 1935
are restricted and may prove insufficient for the protection of the aggrieved
person. The clause achieves two objectives : (1) to give the fullest power to
the Judiciary to issue what under the English Law are called Prerogative
Writs and (2) to prevent the Legislature from curtailing these powers in any
manner whatsoever.

Clause 2

It is difficult to expect that in a country like India where most persons
are communally minded those in authority will give equal treatment to those

STATES AND MINORITIES

407

who do not belong to their community. Unequal treatment has been the
inescapable fate of the Untouchables in India. The following extract from the
Proceedings of the Board of Revenue of the Government of Madras No. 723
dated 5th November, 1892. illustrates the sort of unequal treatment which
is meted out to the Scheduled Castes by Hindu Officers. Says the report :

“134. There are forms of oppression only hitherto hinted at which must be at
least cursorily mentioned. To punish disobedience of Pariahs, their masters —

(a) bring false cases in the village Court or in the criminal Courts;

( b ) obtain, on application, from Government, waste lands lying all round
the paracheri, so as to impound the Pariahs’ cattle or obstruct the
way to their temple;

(c) have mirasi names fraudulently entered in the Government account
against the paracheri;

(d) pull down the huts and destroy the growth in the backyards;

(e) deny occupancy right in immemorial sub-tenancies;

if) forcibly cut the Pariahs’ crops, and on being resisted charge them with
theft and rioting;

(g) under misrepresentations, get them to execute documents by which
they are afterwards ruined;

(h) cut off the flow of water from their fields;

(t) without legal notice, have the property of sub-tenants attached for the
landlords’ arrears of revenue.”

“135. It will be said there are civil and criminal Courts for the redress of
any of these injuries. There are the Courts indeed; but India does not breed
village Hampdens. One must have courage to go to the Courts; money to
employ legal knowledge, and meet legal expenses; and means to live during
the case and the appeals. Further most cases depend upon the decision of the
first Court; and these Courts are presided over by officials who are sometimes
corrupt and who generally for other reasons, sympathize with the wealthy
and landed classes to which they belong.”.

“136. The influence of these classes with the official world can hardly be
exaggerated. It is extreme with natives and great even with Europeans. Every
office, from the highest to the lowest, is stocked with their representatives,
and there is no proposal affecting their interests but they can bring a score
of influence to bear upon it in its course from inception to execution.”

The Punjab Land Alienation Act is another illustration of unequal treatment
of the Untouchables by the Legislature.

Many other minority communities may be suffering from similar treatment
at the hands of the majority community. It is therefore necessary to have

408

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

such a provision to ensure that all citizens shall have equal benefit of Laws,
Rules and Regulations.

The provisions of Clause 2 are borrowed from Civil Rights Protection Act,
1866, and of March 1st, 1875 passed by the Congress of the United States
of America to protect the Negroes against unequal treatment.

Clause 3

Discrimination is another menace which must be guarded against if the
Fundamental Rights are to be real rights. In a country like India where
it is possible for discrimination to be practised on a vast scale and in a
relentless manner Fundamental Rights can have no meaning. The Remedy
follows the lines adopted in the Bill which was recently introduced in the
Congress of the U.S.A. the aim of which is to prevent discrimination being
practised against the Negroes.

Clause 4

The main purpose behind the clause is to put an obligation on the State
to plan the economic life of the people on lines which would lead to highest
point of productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise,
and also provide for the equitable distribution of wealth. The plan set out
in the clause proposes State ownership in agriculture with a collectivised
method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field
of industry. It places squarely on the shoulders of the State the obligation
to supply capital necessary for agriculture as well as for industry. Without
the supply of capital by the State neither land nor industry can be made to
yield better results. It also proposes to nationalize insurance with a double
objective. Nationalized Insurance gives the individual greater security than
a private Insurance Firm does inasmuch as it pledges the resources of the
State as a security for the ultimate payment of his insurance money. It also
gives the State the resources necessary for financing its economic planning
in the absence of which it would have to resort to borrowing from the money
market at a high rate of interest. State Socialism is essential for the rapid
industrialization of India. Private enterprize cannot do it and if it did it
would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism has
produced in Europe and which should be a warning to Indians. Consolidation
of Holdings and Tenancy Legislation are worse than useless. They cannot
bring about prosperity in agriculture. Neither Consolidation nor Tenancy
Legislation can be of any help to the 60 millions of Untouchables who
are just landless labourers. Neither Consolidation nor Tenancy Legislation
can solve their problem. Only collective farms on the lines set out in the
proposal can help them. There is no expropriation of the interests concerned.
Consequently there ought to be no objection to the proposal on that account.

The plan has two special features. One is that it proposes State Socialism
in important fields of economic life. The second special feature of the

STATES AND MINORITIES

409

plan is that it does not leave the establishment of State Socialism to the
will of the Legislature. It establishes State Socialism by the Law of the
Constitution and thus makes it unalterable by any act of the Legislature
and the Executive.

Students of Constitutional Law will at once raise a protest. They are
sure to ask : Does not the proposal go beyond the scope of the usual type
of Fundamental Rights ? My answer is that it does not. If it appears to go
beyond it is only because the conception of Fundamental Rights on which
such criticism is based is a narrow conception. One may go further and say
that even from the narrow conception of the scope of the Constitutional
Law as comprising no more than Fundamental Rights the proposal can find
ample justification. For what is the purpose of prescribing by law the shape
and form of the economic structure of society ? The purpose is to protect
the liberty of the individual from invasion by other individuals which is the
object of enacting Fundamental Rights. The connection between individual
liberty and the shape and form of the economic structure of society may not
be apparent to everyone. None the less the connection between the two is
real. It will be apparent if the following considerations are borne in mind.

Political Democracy rests on four premises which may be set out in the
following terms :

(i) The individual is an end in himself.

(ii) That the individual has certain inalienable rights which must be
guaranteed to him by the Constitution.

(iii) That the individual shall not be required to relinquish any of his
constitutional rights as a condition precedent to the receipt of a
privilege.

(iv) That the State shall not delegate powers to private persons to govern
others.

Anyone who studies the working of the system of social economy based
on private enterprise and pursuit of personal gain will realize how it
undermines, if it does not actually violate, the last two premises on which
Democracy rests. How many have to relinquish their constitutional rights
in order to gain their living ? How many have to subject themselves to be
governed by private employers?

Ask those who are unemployed whether what are called Fundamental
Rights are of any value to them. If a person who is unemployed is offered
a choice between a job of some sort, with some sort of wages, with no fixed
hours of labour and with an interdict on joining a union and the exercise
of his right to freedom of speech, association, religion, etc., can there be
any doubt as to what his choice will be. How can it be otherwise ? The
fear of starvation, the fear of losing a house, the fear of losing savings if
any, the fear of being compelled to take children away from school, the fear

410

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of having to be a burden on public charity, the fear of having to be burned
or buried at public cost are factors too strong to permit a man to stand
out for his Fundamental Rights. The unemployed are thus compelled to
relinquish their Fundamental Rights for the sake of securing the privilege
to work and to subsist.

What about those who are employed? Constitutional Lawyers assume that
the enactment of Fundamental Rights is enough to safeguard their liberty and
that nothing more is called for. They argue that where the State refrains from
intervention in private affairs — economic and social — the residue is liberty.
What is necessary is to make the residue as large as possible and State
intervention as small as possible. It is true that where the State refrains
from intervention what remains is liberty. But this does not dispose of the
matter. One more question remains to be answered. To whom and for whom
is this liberty ? Obviously this liberty is liberty to the landlords to increase
rents, for capitalists to increase hours of work and reduce rate of wages. This
must be so. It cannot be otherwise. For in an economic system employing
armies of workers, producing goods en masse at regular intervals some one
must make rules so that workers will work and the wheels of industry run
on. If the State does not do it the private employer will. Life otherwise will
become impossible. In other words what is called liberty from the control
of the State is another name for the dictatorship of the private employer.

How to prevent such a thing happening ? How to protect the unemployed
as well as the employed from being cheated out of their Fundamental
Rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ? The useful remedy
adopted by Democratic countries is to limit the power of Government to
impose arbitrary restraints in political domain and to invoke the ordinary
power of the Legislature to restrain the more powerful individual from
imposing arbitrary restraints on the less powerful in the economic field.
The inadequacy may the futility of the plan has been well-established. The
successful invocation by the less powerful of the authority of the Legislature
is a doubtful proposition. Having regard to the fact that even under adult
suffrage all Legislatures and Governments are controlled by the more
powerful an appeal to the Legislature to intervene is a very precarious
safeguard against the invasion of the liberty of the less powerful. The plan
follows quite a different method. It seeks to limit not only the power of
Government to impose arbitrary restraints but also of the more powerful
individuals or to be more precise to eliminate the possibility of the more
powerful having the power to impose arbitrary restraints on the less powerful
by withdrawing from the control he has over the economic life of people.
There cannot be slightest doubt that of the two remedies against the invasion
by the more powerful of the rights and liberties of the less powerful the
one contained in the proposal is undoubtedly the more effective. Considered

STATES AND MINORITIES

411

in the light of these observations the proposal is essentially a proposal for
safeguarding the liberty of the individual. No Constitutional Lawyer can
therefore object to it on the ground that it goes beyond the usual scope of
Constitutional Law.

So far as the plan has been considered purely as a means of safeguarding
individual liberty. But there is also another aspect of the plan which is worthy
of note. It is an attempt to establish State Socialism without abrogating
Parliamentary Democracy and without leaving its establishment to the will
of a Parliamentary Democracy. Critics of State Socialism even its friends
are bound to ask why make it a part of the Constitutional Law of the land?
Why not leave it to the Legislature to bring it into being by the ordinary
process of Law. The reason why it cannot be left to the ordinary Law is not
difficult to understand. One essential condition for the success of a planned
economy is that it must not be liable to suspension or abadonment. It must be
permanent. The question is how this permanence can be secured. Obviously
it cannot be secured under the form of Government called Parliamentary
Democracy under the system of Parliamentary Democracy, the policy of the
Legislature and of the Executive is the policy of the majority for the time
being. Under the system of Parliamentary Democracy the majority in one
election may be in favour of State Socialism in Industry and in Agriculture.
At the next election the majority may be against it. The anti-State Socialism
majority will use its Law-making power to undoing the work of the pro-State
Socialism majority and the pro-State Socialism majority will use its Law-
making power to doing over again what has been undone by their opponents.
Those who want the economic structure of society to be modelled on State
Socialism must realize that they cannot leave the fulfilment of so fundamental
a purpose to the exigencies of ordinary Law which simple majorities — whose
political fortunes are never determined by rational causes — have a right
to make and unmake. For these reasons Political Democracy seems to be
unsuited for the purpose.

What is the alternative ? The alternative is Dictatorship. There is no
doubt that Dictatorship can give the permanence which State Socialism
requires as an essential condition for its fructification. There is however
one fact against Dictatorship which must be faced. Those who believe
in individual freedom strongly object to Dictatorship and insists upon
Parliamentary Democracy as a proper form of Government for a Free
Society. For they feel that freedom of the individual is possible only under
Parliamentary Democracy and not under Dictatorship. Consequently those
who want freedom are not prepared to give up Parliamentary Democracy as
a form of Government. However, much they may be anxious to have State
Socialism they will not be ready to exchange Parliamentary Democracy for
Dictatorship eventhough the gain by such an exchange is the achievement
of State Socialism. The problem therefore is to have State Socialism

412

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

without Dictatorship, to have State Socialism with Parliamentary
Democracy. The way out seems to be to retain Parliamentary Democracy
and to prescribe State Socialism by the Law of the Constitution so that it
will be beyond the reach of a Parliamentary majority to suspend, amend
or abrogate it. It is only by this that one can achieve the triple object,
namely, to establish socialism, retain Parliamentary Democracy and avoid
Dictatorship.

The proposal marks a departure from the existing Constitutions whose
aim is merely to prescribe the form of the political structure of society
leaving the economic structure untouched. The result is that the political
structure is completely set at naught by the forces which emerge from
the economic structure which is at variance with the political structure.
Those who want socialism with Parliamentary Democracy and without
Dictatorship should welcome the proposal.

The soul of Democracy is the doctrine of one man, one value. Unfortunately,
Democracy has attempted to give effect to this doctrine only so far as the
political structure is concerned by adopting the rule of one man, one vote
which is supposed to translate into fact the doctrine of one man, one
value. It has left the economic structure to take the shape given to it
by those who are in a position to mould it. This has happened because
Constitutional Laywers have been dominated by the antiquated conception
that all that is necessary for a perfect Constitution for Democracy was to
frame a Constitutional Law which would make Government responsible
to the people and to prevent tyranny of the people by the Government.
Consequently, almost all Laws of Constitution which relate to countries
which are called Democratic stop with Adult Suffrage and Fundamental
Right. They have never advanced to the conception that the Constitutional
Law of Democracy must go beyond Adult Suffrage and Fundamental Rights.
In other words, old time Constitutional Lawyers believed that the scope
and function of Constitutional Law was to prescribe the shape and form of
the political structure of society. They never realized that it was equally
essential to prescribe the shape and form of the economic structure of
society, if Democracy is to live up to its principle of one man, one value.
Time has come to take a bold step and define both the economic structure
as well as the political structure of society by the Law of the Constitution.
All countries like India which are late-comers in the field of Constitution-
making should not copy the faults of other countries. They should profit
by the experience of their predecessors.

ARTICLE II— Section III

Clause 1

In the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935 the model that was
adopted for framing the structure of the Executive in the Provinces and

STATES AND MINORITIES

413

in the Centre was of the British type or what is called by Constitutional
Lawyers Parliamentary Executive as opposed to the American type of
Executive which in contradistinction of the British type is called Non-
Parliamentary Executive. The question is whether the pattern for the
Executive adopted in the two Acts should be retained or whether it should
be abandoned and if so what model should be adopted in its place. Before
giving final opinion on this issue it would be desirable to set out the special
features of the British type of the Executive and the consequences that are
likely to follow if it was applied to India.

The following may be taken to be the special features of British or the
Parliamentary Executive :

(1) It gives a party which has secured a majority in the Legislature the
right to form a Government.

(2) It gives the majority party the right to exclude from Government
persons who do not belong to the Party.

(3) The Government so formed continues in office only so long as it can
command a majority in the Legislature. If it ceases to command a
majority it is bound to resign either in favour of another Government
formed out of the existing Legislature or in favour of a new
Government formed out of a newly elected Legislature.

As to the consequences that would follow if the British System was applied
to India the situation can be summed up in the following proposition :

(1) The British System of Government by a Cabinet of the majority
party rests on the premise that the majority is a political majority.
In India the majority is a communal majority. No matter what social
and political programme it may have the majority will retain its
character of being a communal majority. Nothing can alter this fact.
Given this fact it is clear that if the British System was copied it
would result in permanently vesting Executive power in a Communal
majority.

(2) The British System of Government imposes no obligation upon the
Majority Party to include in its cabinet the representatives of Minority
Party. If applied to India the consequence will be obvious. It would
make the majority community a governing class and the minority
community a subject race. It would mean that a communal majority
will be free to run the administration according to its own ideas of
what is good for the minorities. Such a state of affairs could not be
called democracy. It will have to be called imperialism.

In the light of these consequences it is obvious that the introduction of British
type of the Executive will be full of menace to the life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness of the minorities in general and of the Untouchables in particular.

414

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The problem of the Untouchables is a formidable one for the Untouchables
to face. The Untouchables are surrounded by a vast mass of Hindu population
which is hostile to them and which is not ashamed of committing any
inequity or atrocity against them. For a redress of these wrongs which
are matters of daily occurrence, the Untouchables have to call in the
aid of the administration. What is the character and composition of this
administration ? To be brief, the administration in India is completely
in the bauds of the Hindus. It is their monopoly. From top to bottom it
is controlled by them. There is no Department which is not dominated
by them. They dominate the Police, the Magistracy and the Revenue
Services, indeed any and every branch of the administration. The next
point to remember is that the Hindus in the administration have the same
positive anti-social and inimical attitude to the Untouchables which the
Hindus outside the administration have. Their one aim is to discriminate
against the Untouchables and to deny and deprive them not only of the
benefits of Law, but also of the protection of the Law against tyranny and
oppression. The result is that the Untouchables are placed between the
Hindu population and the Hindu-ridden administration, the one committing
wrong against them and the other protecting the wrong-doer, instead of
helping the victims.

Against this background, what can Swaraj mean to the Untouchables ? It
can only mean one thing, namely, that while today it is only the administration
that is in the hands of the Hindus, under Swaraj the Legislature and
Executive will also be in the hands of the Hindus. It goes without, saying
that such a Swaraj would aggravate the sufferings of the Untouchables.
For, in addition to an hostile administration, there will be an indifferent
Legislature and a callous Executive. The result will be that the administration
unbridled in venom and in harshness, uncontrolled by the Legislature and
the Executive, may pursue its policy of inequity towards the Untouchables
without any curb. To put it differently, under Swaraj the Untouchables
will have no way of escape from the destiny of degradation which Hindus
and Hinduism have fixed for them.

These are special considerations against the introduction of the British
System of Executive which have their origin in the interests of the minorities
and the Scheduled Castes. But there is one general consideration which
can be urged against the introduction of the British Cabinet System in
India. The British Cabinet System has undoubtedly given the British
people a very stable system of Government. Question is will it produce
a stable Government in India ? The chances are very slender. In view of
the clashes of castes and creeds there is bound to be a plethora of parties
and groups in the Legislature in India. If this happens it is possible, nay
certain, that under the system of Parliamentary Executive like the one that
prevails in England under which the Executive is bound to resign upon an

STATES AND MINORITIES

415

adverse vote in the Legislature, India may suffer from instability of the
Executive. For it is the easiest thing for groups to align and realign themselves
at frequent intervals and for petty purposes and bring about the downfall
of Government. The present solidarity of what are called the Major Parties
cannot be expected to continue. Indeed as soon as the Problem of the British
in India is solved the cement that holds these parties together will fall away.
Constant overthrow of Government is nothing short of anarchy. The present
Constitution has in it Section 93 which provides a remedy against it. But
Section 93 would be out of place in the Constitution of a free India, Some
substitute must therefore be found for Section 93.

Taking all these considerations together there is no doubt that the British
type of the Executive is entirely unsuited to India.

The form of the Executive proposed in the clause is intended to serve
the following purposes :

(i) To prevent the majority from forming a Government without giving
any opportunity to the minorities to have a say in the matter.

(ii) To prevent the majority from having exclusive control over
administration and thereby make the tyranny of the minority by
the majority possible.

(iii) To prevent the inclusion by the Majority Party in the Executive
representatives of the minorities who have no confidence of the
minorities.

(iv) To provide a stable Executive necessary for good and efficient
administration.

The clause takes the American form of Executive as a model and adapts it
to Indian conditions especially to the requirements of minorities. The form of
the Executive suggested in the proposal cannot be objected to on the ground
that it is against the principle of responsible government. Indians who are
used to the English form of Executive forget that this is not the only form of
democratic and responsible Government. The American form of Executive is an
equally good type of democratic and responsible form of Government. There is
also nothing objectionable in the proposal that a person should not be qualified
to become a Minister merely because he is elected to the Legislature. The
principle that a member of the Legislature before he is made a Minister should
be chosen by his constituents was fully recognized by the British Constitution
for over hundred years. A member of Parliament who was appointed a
Minister had to submit himself for election before taking up his appointment.
It was only lately given up. There ought therefore to be no objection to
it on the ground that the proposals are not compatible with responsible
Governments. The actual proposal is an improved edition of the American
form of Government, for the reason that under it members of the Executive
can sit in the Legislature and have a right to speak and answer questions.

416

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Clause 2

The proposal cannot be controversial. The best remedy against tyranny
and oppression by a majority against the minority is inquiry, publicity and
discussion. This is what the safeguard provides for. A similar proposal
was also recommended by the Sapru Committee.

Clause 3

Social boycott is always held over the heads of the Untouchables by
the Caste Hindus as a sword of Democles. Only the Untouchables know
what a terrible weapon it is in the hands of the Hindus. Its effects and
forms are well described in the Report made by a Committee appointed
by the Government of Bombay in 1928 to investigate the grievances of
the Depressed Classes and from which the following extracts are made.
It illuminates the situation in a manner so simple that everybody can
understand what tyranny the Hindus are able to practise upon the
Untouchables. The Committee said:

“Although we have recommended various remedies to secure to the
Depressed Classes their rights to all public utilities we fear that there will
be difficulties in the way of their exercising them for a long time to come.
The first difficulty is the fear of open violence against them by the orthodox
classes. It must be noted that the Depressed Classes form a small minority
in every village, oppose to which is a great majority of the orthodox who are
bent on protecting their interests and dignity from any supposed invasion by
the Depressed Classes at any cost. The danger of prosecution by the Police
has put a limitation upon the use of violence by the orthodox classes and
consequently such cases are rare.

The second difficulty arises from the economic position in which the
Depressed Classes are found today. The Depressed Classes have no economic
independence in most parts of the Presidency. Some cultivate the lands of
the orthodox classes as their tenants at will. Others live on their earnings as
farm labourers employed by the orthodox classes and the rest subsist on the
food or grain given to them by the orthodox classes in lieu of service rendered
to them as village servants. We have heard of numerous instances where the
orthodox classes have used their economic power as a weapon against those
Depressed Classes in their villages, when the latter have dared to exercise their
rights, and have evicted them from their land, and stopped their employment
and discontinued their remuneration as village servants. This boycott is
often planned on such an extensive scale as to include the prevention of the
Depressed Classes from using the commonly used paths and the stoppage of
sale of the necessaries of life by the village Bania. According to the evidence,

STATES AND MINORITIES

417

sometimes small causes suffice for the proclamation of a social boycott against
the Depressed Classes. Frequently it follows on the exercise by the Depressed
Classes of their right to use the common well, but cases have been by no
mean rare where a stringent boycott has been proclaimed simply because
a Depressed Class man has put on the sacred thread, has bought a piece
of land, has put on good clothes or ornaments, or has carried a marriage
procession with a bridegroom on the horse through the public street”.

This was said in 1928. Lest it should be regarded as a phase which has
now ended I reproduce below a copy of a petition by the Untouchables
of the village Kheri Jessore in the Punjab addressed to the Deputy
Commissioner of the Rohtak District in February 1947 and a copy of
which was sent to me. It reads as follows :

“From

The Scheduled Caste People (Chamars),

Village Kheri Jessore, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

To

The Deputy Commissioner,

Rohtak District, Rohtak.

Sir,

We, the following Scheduled Caste (Chamars) of the Village Kheri Jessore,
beg to invite your kind attention to the hard plight, we are put to, due to
the undue pressure and merciless treatment by the Caste Hindu Jats of
this village.

It was about four months back that the Jats of the village assembled
in the Chopal and told us to work in the fields on a wage in kind of one
bundle of crops, containing only about one seer of grains per day per man
instead of food at both times and a load of crops, and annas 8 in addition
which we used to get before above announcement was made. As it was
too little and insufficient to meet both ends, we refused to go to work. At
this they were enraged and declared a Social Boycott on us. They made a
rule that our cattle would not be allowed to graze in the jungle unless we
would agree to pay a tax not leviable under Government for the animals,
which they call as “Poochhi” They even do not allow our cattle to drink
water in the village pool and have prevented the sweepers from cleaning
the streets where we live so that heaps of dust and dirt are lying there
which may cause some disease if left unattended to. We are forced to lead
a shameful life and they are always ready to beat us and to tear down our
honour by behaving indecently towards our wives, sisters and daughters.

We are experiencing a lot of trouble of the worst type. While going to the

418

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

school, the children were even beaten severely and in a merciless
manner.

We submitted an application detailing the above facts to yourself but we are
sorry that no action has been taken as yet.

It is also for your kind consideration that the Inspector of Police and Tehsildar
of Rohtak, whom we approached in this connection, made a careless investigation
and in our opinion, no attention was paid to redress the difficulties of the poor
and innocent persons.

We, therefore, request your good self to consider over the matter and make
some arrangement to stop the merciless treatment and threats which the Jats
give us in different ways. We have no other approach except to knock at your
kind door and hope your honour will take immediate steps to enable us to lead
an honourable and peaceful life which is humanity’s birth-right.

We beg to remain,

Sir,

Your most obedient servants,
Scheduled Caste People
(Chamars),

of Village Kheri Jessore,

Tehsil and District Rohtak.

Thumb Impressions.

Copy forwarded to the Hon’ble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar,
Western Court, New Delhi.

Received on 1st February 1947.”

This shows that what was true in 1928 is true even today. What is true
of Bombay is true of the whole of India. For evidence of the general use of
boycott by the Hindus against the Untouchables one has only to refer to
the events that occurred all over India in the last elections to the Provincial
Legislatures. Only when boycott is made criminal will the Untouchables be
free from being the slaves of the Hindus.

The weapon of boycott is nowadays used against other communities
besides the Scheduled Castes. It is therefore in the interests of all minor
communities to have this protection.

The provisions relating to boycott are taken bodily from the Burma Anti-
Boycott Act, 1922.

Clause 4

Such a provision already exists in Section 150 of the Government of India
Act, 1935.

STATES AND MINORITIES

419

ARTICLE II— Section IV

PART I — Clause I

There is nothing new in this clause. The right to representation in the
Legislature is conceded by the Poona Pact. The only points that require to
be reconsidered relate to (1) Quantum of Representation, (2) Weightage and
(3) The System of Electorates.

(1) Quantum

The quantum of representation allowed to the Scheduled Castes by the
Poona Pact is set out in Clause I of the Pact. The proportion set out in
the Pact was fixed out of the balance of seats which remained after (i) the
share of the other communities had been taken out; (ii) after weightage to
other communities had been allotted, and (iii) after seats had been allocated
to special interests. This allotment of seats to the Scheduled Castes has
resulted in great injustice. The loss due to seats taken out as weightage
and seats given to special interests ought not to have been thrown upon
the Scheduled Castes. The allotment of those seats had already been made
by the Communal Award long before the Poona Pact. It was therefore not
possible then to rectify this injustice.

(2) Weightage

There is another injustice from which the Scheduled Castes have been
suffering. It relates to their right to a share in weightage.

As one can see the right to weightage has become a matter of double
controversy. One controversy is between the majority and the minorities,
the other is a matter of controversy between the different minorities.

The first controversy relates to the principle of weightage. The majority
insists that the minority has no right to representation in excess of the ratio
of its population to the total population. Why this rule is insisted upon by
the majority it is difficult to understand. Is it because the majority wants
to establish its own claim to population ratio so that it may always remain
as a majority and act as a majority ? Or is it because of the fact that a
minority no matter how much weightage was given to it must remain a
minority and cannot alter the fact that the majority will always be able
to impose its will upon it. The first ground leads to a complete negation
of the basic conception of majority rule which if rightly understood means
nothing more than a decision of the majority to which the minority has
reconciled itself. This cannot be the intention of the majority. One must
put a more charitable construction and assume that the argument on which
the contention of the majority rests is the second and not the first. That
a minority even with weightage will remain a minority has to be accepted
in view of the insistence of a Communal Majority to remain a majority

420

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

and to claim the privileges of a political majority which it is not. But
surely there is a difference between a defeat which is a complete rout and
a defeat which is almost victory though not a victory. Cricketers know what
difference there is between the defeat of a team by a few runs, a defeat by
a few wickets and a defeat by one whole innings. The defeat by one whole
innings is a complete frustration which a defeat by a few runs is not. Such
a frustration when it comes about in the political life of a minority depresses
and demoralizes and crushes the spirit of the minority. This must be avoided
at any price. Looked at from this point of view there is no doubt that the
rule of population — ratio — representation insisted upon by the majority
is wrong. What a minority needs is not more representation but effective
representation.

And what is effective representation? Obviously the effectiveness of
representation depends upon its being large enough to give the minority
the sense of not being entirely overwhelmed by the majority. Representation
according to population to a minority or to the minorities combined may be
effective by reason of the fact that the population of a minority where there
is only one or of the combined minorities where there are many is large
enough to secure effective minority representation. But there may be cases
where the population of a minority or of the minorities combined is too small
to secure such effective representation if the population ratio of a minority is
taken as an inflexible standard to determine its quantum of representation.
To insist upon such a standard is to make mockery of the protection to the
minority which is the purpose behind the right to representation which is
accepted as the legitimate claim of a minority. In such cases weightage
which is another name for deduction from the quantum of representation
which is due to the majority on the basis of its population becomes essential
and the majority if it wishes to be fair and honest must concede it. There
can therefore be no quarrel over the principle of weightage. On this footing
the controversy becomes restricted to the question, how is the magnitude
of weightage to be determined ? This obviously is a question of adjustment
and not of principle.

There can therefore be no manner of objection to the principle of weightage.
The demand for weightage is however a general demand of all the minorities
and the Scheduled Castes must join them in it where the majority is too big.
What is however wrong with the existing weightage is unequal distribution
among the various minorities. At present, some minorities have secured a
lion’s share and some like the Untouchables have none. This wrong must be
rectified by a distribution of the weightage on some intelligible principles.

(3) Electorates

1. The method of election to the seals allotted to the Scheduled Castes
is set out in clauses (2) to (4) of the Poona Pact. It provides for two

STATES AND MINORITIES

421

elections : (1) Primary election and (2) Final election. The Primary election
is by a separate electorate of the Scheduled Castes. It is only a qualifying
election and determines who is entitled to stand in the Final election on
behalf of the Scheduled Castes for the seats reserved to them. The Final
election is by a joint electorate in which both caste Hindus and the Scheduled
Castes can vote and the final result is determined by their joint vote.

2. Clause 5 of the Poona Pact has limited the system of Primary election
to ten years which means that any election taking place after 1947 will
be by a system of joint electorates and reserved seats pure and simple.

3. Even if the Hindus agreed to extend the system of double election
for a further period it will not satisfy the Scheduled Castes. There are
two objections to the retention of the Primary election. Firstly, it does
not help the Scheduled Castes to elect a man who is their best choice. As
will be seen from Appendix III, the Scheduled Caste candidate who tops
the poll in the Primary election fails to succeed in the Final election and
the Scheduled Caste candidate who fails in the Primary election tops the
poll in the Final election. Secondly, the Primary election is for the most
part a fiction and not a fact. In the last election, out of 151 seats reserved
for the Scheduled Castes there were Primary elections only in 43. This is
because it is impossible for the Scheduled Castes to bear the expenses of
two elections — Primary and Final. To retain such a system is worse than
useless.

4. Things will be much worse under the system of joint electorates and
reserved seats which will hereafter become operative under the terms of the
Poona Pact. This is no mere speculation. The last election has conclusively
proved that the Scheduled Castes can be completely disfranchised in a
joint electorate. As will be seen from the figures given in Appendix III,
the Scheduled Caste candidates have not only been elected by Hindu votes
when the intention was that they should be elected by Scheduled Caste
votes but what is more the Hindus have elected those Scheduled Caste
candidates who had failed in the Primary election. This is a complete
disfranchisement of the Scheduled Castes. The main reason is to be found
in the enormous disparity between the voting strength of the Scheduled
Castes and the caste Hindus in most of the constituencies as may be seen
from figures given in Appendix III. As the Simon Commission has observed,
the device of the reserved seats ceases to be workable where the protected
community constitutes an exceedingly small fraction of any manageable
constituency. This is exactly the case of the Scheduled Castes. This disparity
cannot be ignored. It will remain even under adult suffrage. That being
the case, a fool-proof and a knave-proof method must be found to ensure
real representation to the Scheduled Castes. Such a method must involve
the abolition of —

(i) the Primary election as a needless and heavy encumbrance; and

422

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(ii) the substitution of separate electorates.

5. One of the issues which has embittered the relations between the Hindus
and the Scheduled Castes in the political field is the issue of electorate. The
Scheduled Castes are insisting upon separate electorates. The Hindus are
equally insistent on opposing the demand. To arrive at a settlement on this
issue — without which there can be no peace and amity between the Hindus
and the Scheduled Castes — it is necessary to determine who is right and who
is wrong and whether the opposition is based on rational grounds or is based
on mere prejudice.

6. The grounds which are generally urged against the demand of the Scheduled
Castes for separate electorates are :

(i) that the Scheduled Castes are not a minority;

(ii) that the Scheduled Castes are Hindus and therefore they cannot have
separate electorates;

(iii) that separate electorates will perpetuate untouchability;

(iv) that separate electorates are anti-national; and

(v) that separate electorates enables British Imperialism to influence the
communities having separate electorates to act against the interests of
the country.

7. Are these arguments valid ?

(i) To say that the Scheduled Castes are not a minority is to misunderstand
the meaning of the word ‘minority’. Separation in religion is not the only
test of a minority. Nor is it a good and efficient test. Social discrimination
constitutes the real test for determining whether a social group is or
is not a minority. Even Mr. Gandhi thought it logical and practical to
adopt this test in preference to that of religious separation. Following
this test, Mr. Gandhi in an editorial under the heading. ‘The Fiction of
Majority’ in the Harijan dated 21st October 1939 has given his opinion
that the Scheduled Castes are the only real minority in India.

(ii) To argue that the Scheduled Castes are Hindus and therefore
cannot demand separate electorates is to put the same argument
in a different form. To make religious affiliation the determining
factor for constitutional safeguards is to overlook the fact that the
religious affiliation may be accompanied by an intense degree of social
separation and discrimination. The belief that separate electorates go
with separation in religion arises from the fact that those minorities
who have been given separate electorates happen to be religious
minorities. This, however, is not correct. Muslims are given separate
electorates not because they are different from Hindus in point of
religion. They are given separate electorates because — and this is the
fundamental fact — the social relations between the Hindus and the

STATES AND MINORITIES

423

Musalmans are marked by social discrimination. To put the point
in a somewhat different manner, the nature of the electorates is
determined not by reference to religion but by reference to social
considerations. That it is social considerations and not religious
affiliation or disaffiliation which is accepted as the basis of
determining the nature of the electorates is best illustrated by the
arrangements made under the Government of India Act (1935) for
the Christian community in India. The Christian community is
divided into three sections — Europeans, Anglo-Indians and Indian
Christians. In spite of the fact that they all belong to the same
religion, each section has a separate electorate. This shows that
what is decisive is not religious affiliation but social separation.

(iii) To urge that separate electorates prevent solidarity between the
Untouchables and the Caste Hindus is the result of confused
thinking. Elections take place once in five years. Assuming there were
joint electorates, it is difficult to understand how social solidarity
between the Hindus and the Untouchables can be promoted by
their devoting one day for voting together when out of the rest of
the five years they are leading severally separate lives ? Similarly,
assuming that there were separate electorates it is difficult to
understand how one day devoted to separate voting in the course
of five years can make for greater separation than what already
exist ? Or contrary wise, how can one day in five years devoted to
separate voting prevent those who wish to work for their union
from carrying out heir purposes. To make it concrete, how can
separate electorate for the Untouchables prevent inter- marriage or
inter-dining being introduced between them and the Hindus ? It is
therefore futile to say that separate electorates for the Untouchables
will perpetuate separation between them and the Hindus.

(iv) To insist that separate electorates create anti-national spirit is
contrary to experience. The Sikh have separate electorates. But no
one can say that the Sikhs are anti-national. The Muslims have
had separate electorates right from 1909. Mr. Jinnah had been
elected by separate electorates. Yet, Mr. Jinnah was the apostle
of Indian Nationalism up to 1935. The Indian Christians have
separate electorates. Nonetheless a good lot of them have shown
their partiality to the Congress if they have not been actually
returned on the Congress ticket. Obviously, nationalism and anti-
nationalism have nothing to do with the electoral system. They are
the result of extra electoral forces.

(v) This argument has no force. It is nothing but escapism. Be that as it
may, with free India any objection to separate electorates on such
a ground must vanish.

424

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

8. The reason why the arguments advanced by the opponents of separate
electorates do not stand the scrutiny of logic and experience is due entirely
to the fact that their approach to the subject is fundamentally wrong. It is
wrong in two respects :

(i) They fail to realize that the system of electorates has nothing to
do with the religious nexus or communal nexus. It is nothing but a
mechanism to enable a minority to return its true representative to
the Legislature. Being a mechanism for the protection of a minority
it follows that whether the electorate should be joint or separate
must be left to be determined by the minority.

(ii) They fail to make any distinction between the demand for separate
electorates by a majority community and a similar demand made
by a minority community. A majority community has no right to
demand separate electorates. The reason is simple. A right by a
majority community to demand separate electorates is tantamount
to a right to establish the Government of the majority community
over the minority community without the consent of the minority.
This is contrary to the well-established doctrine of democracy that
government must be with the consent of the governed. No such
evil consequence follows from the opposite principle namely that
a minority community is entitled to determine the nature of the
electorates suited to its interests, because there is no possibility of
the minority being placed in a position to govern the majority.

9. A correct attitude towards the whole question rests on the following
axioms :

(i) The system of electorates being a devise for the protection of the
minority, the issue whether the electoral system should be the joint
electorate or separate electorate must be left to the wishes of the
minority. If it is large enough to influence the majority it will choose
joint electorates. If it is too small for the purpose, it will prefer
separate electorates for fear of being submerged.

(ii) The majority, being in a position to rule can have no voice in the
determination of the system of electorates. If the minority wants joint
electorates, the majority must submit itself to joint electorates. If the
minority decides to have separate electorates for itself the majority
cannot refuse to grant them. In other words, the majority must look
to the decision of the minority and abide by it.

PART I — Clause 2

This demand may appear to be outside the Poona Pact in as much as
the Poona Pact made no provision for it. This would not be correct. As
a matter of fact, if no provision was made, it was because there was no
need to make such a provision. This was due to two reasons : Firstly, it

STATES AND MINORITIES

425

was due to the fact that at the time when the Poona Pact was made no
community was guaranteed by Law a specific quantum of representation in
Executive, Secondly, the representation of the communities in the Executive
was left to a convention which the Governor by his instrument of instructions
was required to see observed. Experience has shown that the quantum of
representation of the Scheduled Castes in the Executive should now be fixed.

PART I — Clause 3

This is not a new demand. Clause 8 of the Poona Pact guarantees to the
Scheduled Castes fair representation in Public Services. It does not, however,
define the quantum of representation. The demand has been admitted by the
Government of India as legitimate and even the quantum of representation
has been defined. All that remains is to give it a statutory basis.

PART II — Clause 1

This is not a new demand. Clause 9 of Poona Pact guarantees that an
adequate sum shall be earmarked for the education of the Scheduled Castes.
It does not define the quantum. All that the demand does is to define the
quantum of liability the State should take. In this connection reference may
be made to Section 83 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which relates
to the education of the Anglo-Indians and Europeans and to the grants made
to the Aligarh and Benaras Hindu Universities by the Central Government.

PART II — Clause 2

This a new demand but is justified by circumstances. At present, the
Hindus live in the village and the Untouchables live in the Ghettoes. The
object is to free the Untouchables from the thraldom of the Hindus. So long
as the present arrangement continues it is impossible for the Untouchables
either to free themselves from the yoke of the Hindus or to get rid of their
Untouchability. It is the close knit association of the Untouchables with the
Hindus living in the same villages which marks them out as Untouchables
and which enables the Hindus to identify them as being Untouchables.
India is admittedly a land of villages and so long as the village system
provides an easy method of marking out and identifying the Untouchables,
the Untouchable has no escape from Untouchability. It is the system of
the Village plus the Ghetto which perpetuates Untouchability and the
Untouchables therefore demand that the nexus should be broken and the
Untouchables who are as a matter of fact socially separate should be made
separate geographically and territorially also, and be settled into separate
villages exclusively of Untouchables in which the distinction of the high and
the low and of Touchable and Untouchable will find no place.

The second reason for demanding separate settlements arises out of the
economic position of the Untouchables in the villages. That their condition
is most pitiable no one will deny. They are a body of landless labourers

426

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

who are entirely dependent upon such employment as the Hindus may
choose to give them and on such wages as the Hindus may find it profitable
to pay. In the villages in which they five they cannot engage in any trade
or occupation, for owing to Untouchability no Hindu will deal with them. It
is therefore obvious that there is no way of earning a living which is open
to the Untouchables so long as they live in a Ghetto as a dependent part of
the Hindu village.

This economic dependence has also other consequences besides the condition
of poverty and degradation which proceeds from it. The Hindu has a Code of
life, which is part of his religion. This Code of life gives him many privileges
and heaps upon the Untouchable many indignities which are incompatible with
the dignity and sanctity of human life. The Untouchables all over India are
fighting against the indignities and injustices which the Hindus in the name
of their religion have heaped upon them. A perpetual war is going on every
day in every village between the Hindus and the Untouchables. It does not
see the light of the day. The Hindu Press is not prepared to give it publicity
lest it should injure the cause of their freedom in the eyes of the world. The
existence of a grim struggle between the Touchables and the Untouchables
is however a fact. Under the village system the Untouchables has found
himself greatly handicapped in his struggle for free and honourable life. It is
a contest between the Hindus who are economically and socially strong and
the Untouchables who are economically poor and numerically small. That the
Hindus most often succeed in suppressing the Untouchables is due to many
causes. The Hindus have the Police and the Magistracy on their side. In a
quarrel between the Untouchables and the Hindus the Untouchables will never
get protection from the Police and justice from the Magistrate. The Police and
the Magistracy naturally love their class more than their duty. But the chief
weapon in the armoury of the Hindus is economic power which they possess
over the poor Untouchables living in the village. The proposal may be dubbed
escapism. But the only alternative is perpetual slavery.

PART III — Clause 1

No country which has the problem of Communal majority and Communal
minority is without some kind of an arrangement whereby they agree to share
political power. South Africa has such an understanding. So has Canada. The
arrangement for sharing political power between the English and the French
in Canada is carried to the minutes office. In referring to this fact Mr. Porritt
in his book on the Evolution of the Dominion of Canada says :

“Conditions at Ottawa, partly due to race and language, and partly to
long-prevailing ideas as to the distribution of all government patronage,
have militated against the Westminster precedent of continuing a member
in the chair for two or three parliaments, regardless of the fortunes of
political parties at general elections. There is a new speaker at Ottawa

STATES AND MINORITIES

427

for each new House of Commons; and it has long been a custom that when
one political party continues in power for two or three parliaments, if the
speaker in one parliament is of British extraction the next one shall be a
French-Canadian.

“It is a rule also that the offices of speaker and of deputy speaker can
at no time be held by men of the same race. If the speaker is a French-
Canadian, the deputy speaker, who is also Chairman of committees, must
be an English-speaking Canadian ; for the rule of the House is that the
member elected to serve as deputy speaker shall be required to possess
the full and practical knowledge of the language which is not that of the
speaker for the time being.

The clerkship and the assistant clerkship of the House, and the offices of
sergeant-at-arms and deputy sergeant-at-arms — all appointive as distinct from
elective offices — are, by usage, also similarly divided between the two races.

Nearly all the offices, important and unimportant, connected with
parliament, with the Senate as well as with the House, are distributed in
accordance with these rules or usages. A roll call of the staffs of the two
Houses, including even the boys in knicker-bockers who act as pages, would
contain the names of almost as many French-Canadians as Canadians of
British ancestry.

The rules and usages by virtue of which this distribution of offices is
made are older than Confederation. They date back to the early years of
the United Provinces, when Quebec and Ontario elected exactly the same
number of members to the Legislature, and when these were the only
provinces in the union.

Quebec today elects only 65 of the 234 members of the House of Commons.

Its population is not one-fourth of the population of the Dominion. Its
contribution to Dominion revenues does not exceed one-sixth. But an equal
division of the offices of the House of Commons is regarded by Quebec as
necessary to the preservation of its rights and privileges ; and so long as each
political party, when it is in power, is dependent on support from French-
Canada, it will be nearly as difficult to ignore the claim of Quebec to these
parliamentary honours and offices as it would be to repeal the clause in the
British North America Act that safeguards the separate schools system.”.

Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian Nationalism has
developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the
Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any
claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism while
the monopolizing of the whole power by the majority is called Nationalism.
Guided by such a political philosophy the majority is not prepared to

428

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

allow the minorities to share political power nor is it willing to respect any
convention made in that behalf as is evident from their repudiation of the
obligation (to include representatives of the minorities in the cabinet) contained
in the Instrument of Instructions issued to the Governors in the Government
of India Act of 1935. Under these circumstances there is no way left but to
have the rights of the Scheduled Castes embodied in the Constitution.

PART III — Clause 2

This is not a new demand. It replaces Clause 6 of the Poona Pact which
provides that the system of representation for the Scheduled Castes by
reserved seats shall continue until determined by mutual consent between
the communities concerned in the settlement. Since there is no safe method
of ascertaining the will of the Scheduled Castes as to how to amend and alter
the safeguards provided for them it is necessary to formulate a plan which will
take the place of Clause 6 of the Pact. Provisions having similar objectives to
those contained in the proposal exist in the Constitution of Australia, America
and South Africa.

In dealing with a matter of this sort two considerations have to be borne
in mind. One is that it is not desirable to rule out the possibility of a change
in the safeguards being made in the future by the parties concerned. On
the other hand it is by no means desirable to incessant struggle over their
revision. If the new Union and State Legislatures are to address themselves
successfully to their responsibilities set out in the preamble it is desirable
that they should not be distracted by the acute contentions between religions
and classes which questions of change in the safeguards are bound to raise.
Hence a period of twenty-five years has been laid down before any change
could be considered.

PART IV

The object of this prevision is to see that whatever safeguards are provided
for the Scheduled Castes in British India are also provided for the Scheduled
Castes in the Indian States. The provision lays down that an Indian State
seeking admission to the Union shall have to satisfy that its Constitution
contains these safeguards.

PART V — Interpretation

Whether the Scheduled Castes are a minority or not has become a matter of
controversy. The purpose of First Provision to set this controversy at rest. The
Scheduled Castes are in a worst position as compared to any other minority
in India. As such they required and deserve much more protection than any
other minority does. The least one can do is to treat them as a minority.

The purpose of Second Provision is to remove the provincial bar. There is
no reason why a person who belongs to Scheduled Castes in one Province
should lose the benefit of political privileges given by the Constitution merely
because he happens to change his domicile.

STATES AND MINORITIES

429

Appendix II

TEXT OF THE POONA PACT

(1) There shall be seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of the
general electorates seats in the Provincial Legislatures as follows :

Madras

Bombay with Sind
Punjab

Bihar and Orissa
Central Provinces
Assam
Bengal

United Provinces

Total

30

15

8

18

20

7

30

20

148

These figures are based on total strength of the Provincial councils
announced in the Prime Minister’s decision.

(2) Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates, subject however,
to the following procedure :

All the members of the Depressed Classes registered in the general
electoral roll in a constituency will form an electoral college, which will
elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for
each of such reserved seats, by the method of the single vote ; the four
getting the highest number of votes in such Primary election, shall be
candidates for election by the general electorate.

(3) Representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature
shall likewise be on the principle of joint electorates and reserved seats
by the method of Primary election in the manner provided for in clause
(2) above, for their representation in the Provincial Legislatures.

(4) In the Central Legislature, eighteen per cent of seats allotted to the
general electorate for British India in the said Legislature shall be reserved
for the Depressed Classes.

(5) The system of Primary election to a pannel of Candidates for election
to the Central and Provincial Legislature, as hereinbefore mentioned, shall
come to an end after the first ten years, unless terminated sooner by mutual
agreement under the provision of clause (6) below.

(6) The system of representation of the Depressed Classes by reserved
seats in the Provincial and Central Legislatures as provided for in clauses
(1) and (4) shall continue until determined by mutual agreement between
the communities concerned in the settlement.

(7) Franchise for the Central and Provincial Legislatures, for the Depressed
Classes shall be as indicated in the Lothian Committee Report.

430

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(8) There shall be no disabilities attaching to anyone on the ground of
his being a member of the Depressed Class in regard to any elections to
local bodies or appointment to the Public Services. Every endeavour shall
be made to secure fair representation of the Depressed Classes in these
respects, subject to such educational qualifications as may be laid down for
appointment to the Public Service.

(9) In every Province out of the educational grant an adequate sum shall
be earmarked for providing educational facilities to the Members of the
Depressed Classes.

STATES AND MINORITIES

431

Appendix III

DISADVANTAGES OF THE POONA PACT

1. The Poona Pact was intended to devise a method whereby the Scheduled
Castes would be able to return to the Legislature representatives of their
choice. This intention has been completely nullified as will be seen from
the following series of statistics. The series have been constructed from the
results of the last elections which took place in February 1946.

2. The statistical data is arranged in four series of tables :

First series show the votes secured by the successful Caste Hindu
candidate and the successful Scheduled Caste candidate in the Final
election.

Second series show in how many cases did reliance on reservation clause
become necessary for the success of the Scheduled Caste candidate
in the Final election and in how many he succeeded without the
benefit of reservation.

Third series show the relative voting strength of the Caste Hindus and
the Scheduled Castes in constituencies in which seats are reserved
for the Scheduled Castes.

Fourth series show the position in the Primary election of the Scheduled
Caste Candidates who became successful in the Final elections.

3. The conclusions that follow from these figures will not escape those
who care to examine them. The figures prove the following propositions :

(i) That every of the Scheduled Caste candidate who became successful
in the Final election owed his success to the votes of the caste Hindus
and not of the Scheduled Castes. A great many of them came to the
top of the poll and secured votes equal to and in some cases larger
than those obtained by Caste Hindu candidates ( See Tables in the
First Series). Secondly, in very few constituencies was the successful
Scheduled Caste candidate required to rely on reservation ( See Tables
in the Second Series). This is a most unexpected phenomenon. Anyone
who compares the voting strength of the Scheduled Castes with the
voting strength of the Caste Hindus in the different constituencies
(See Tables in the Third Series) would realize that the voting strength
of the Scheduled Castes is so small that such a phenomenon could
never have occurred if only the Scheduled Castes voters had voted
for the Scheduled Caste candidates. That they have occurred is proof
positive that the success of the Scheduled Caste candidate in the
Final election is conditioned by the Caste Hindu votes.

(ii) That comparing the results of the Primary election with those of
the Final election ( See Tables in the Fourth series) the Scheduled
Caste candidate who was elected in the Final election was one

432

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

who had failed in the Primary election (if the Primary election be
treated as a Final election and the constituency be treated as a
single-member constituency).

(iii) Owing to the extreme disparity between the voting strength of the

Hindus and the Scheduled Castes — disparity which will not disappear
even under adult suffrage — a system of joint electorates will not
succeed in giving the Scheduled Castes the chance of returning their
true representatives.

(iv) The Poona Pact has completely disfranchised the Scheduled Castes

inasmuch as candidates whom they rejected in the Primary elections —
which is a true index of their will — have been returned in the Final
election by the votes of the Caste Hindus.

The Poona Pact is thus fraught with mischief. It was accepted because
of the coercive fast of Mr. Gandhi and because of the assurance given at
the time that the Hindus will not interfere in the election of the Scheduled
Castes.

FIRST SERIES

Votes obtained by the successful Scheduled Caste candidates as compared
with the votes secured by the successful Caste Hindu candidates.

Page Nos.

Part I — Madras . . . . . . 433

Part II — Bengal . . . . . . 433-34

Part III — Bombay . . . . . . 434

Part IV — U.P. . . . . . . 435

Part V — C.P. . . . . . . 435

Part VI — Assam . . . . . . 436

Part VII — Orissa 436

STATES AND MINORITIES

433

First Series

I. MADRAS

Name of the Constituency

Seats

Votes polled by

Votes polled by

successful Hindu successful Scheduled

candidates

Caste candidates

1

2

3

4

1 .

Coconada

2

32,607

28,544

2.

Ellore

2

37,618

38,195

3.

Bandar

2

69,319

70,931

4.

Ongole

2

50,906

49,992

5.

Penukonda

2

17,406

18,125

6.

Kurnool

2

32,756

32,294

7.

Chingleput

2

13,865

15,129

8.

Thiruvalur

2

17,225

17,818

9.

Ranipet

2

21,249

21,059

10.

Tiruvannamalai

2

31,476

32,132

11.

Tindivanam

2

25,626

25,442

12.

Chidambaram

2

15,272

14,874

13.

Tanjore

2

26,904

16,133

14.

Mannargudi

2

29,932

30,116

15.

Ariyalur

2

22,656

20,520

16.

Sattur

2

30,988

29,530

17.

Malapuram

2

28,229

28,085

18.

Namakkal

2

15,433

15,085

II. BENGAL

Name of the Constituency

Seats Votes polled

Votes polled

by successful

by successful

Hindu

Scheduled Caste

candidates

candidates

1

2

3

4 5

1 .

Burdwan Central

2

42,858

33,903 ....

2.

Burdwan, North-West

2

32,270

25,723 ....

3.

Birbhum

2

24,629

20,252 ....

4.

Bankura, West

2

30,388

21,266 ....

5.

Thurgram-cum-Ghatal

2

40,900

19,060 ....

6.

Hooghly, North-East

2

26,132

18,768 ....

7.

Howrah

2

40,608

36,099 ....

8.

24 Parganas, South-East

2

50,345

38,459 ....

9.

24 Parganas, North-West

2

45,339

48,272 ....

10.

Nadia

2

30,489

28,054 ....

11.

Murshidabad

2

32,386

26,958 ....

12.

Jessore

2

38,665

41,434 ....

434 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

II. BENGAL

Name of the Constituency

Seats

Votes polled

Votes polled

by successful

by successful

Hindu

Scheduled Caste

candidates

candidates

1

2

3

4

5

13.

Khulna

.. .. 3

79,218

57,724

44,043

14.

Malda

.. .. 2

32,728

12,796

15.

Dinajpur

.. .. 3

46,146

35,127

30,839

16.

J a 1 p a igur i - c « m - Sili g u r i

.. 3

30,950

26,109

13,829

17.

Rangpur

.. .. 3

46,869

29,657

23,237

18.

Bogra-cwm-Pabna

2

43,249

31,515

19.

Dacca, East

.. .. 2

51,808

31,392

20.

Mymensingh, West

2

37,983

32,782

21.

Mymensingh, East

2

43,678

32,207

22.

Faridpur

.. .. 2

70,115

51,450

29,503

23.

Bakargunj

.. .. 2

48,560

28,560

24.

Tippera

.. .. 2

60,146

59,051

III. BOMBAY

Votes
secured by

Name of the Constituency Seats ... , , f, UCCeSS f U l

Votes secured by Scheduled

successful Caste

Hindu candidates candidates

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 .

Bombay City (Suburban)

3

57,182

47,835

59,646

2.

Bombay City (Byculla) ..

3

42,143

41,795

43,251

3.

Kaira District

4

68,044

63,422

57,394

69,807

4.

Surat District

4

40,232

39,985

39,610

39,849

5.

Thana, South

3

30,581

27,587

11,630

6.

Ahmednagar, South

3

25,747

20,948

20,908

7.

East Khandesh, East

4

38,721

34,349

33,960

36,136

8.

Nasik, West

4

37,218

36,794

36,555

42,604

9.

Poona, West

3

23,758

23,454

24,709

10.

Satara, North

4

44,315

42,727

41,474

43,961

11.

Sholapur, North-East

3

19,380

16,705

18,264

12.

Belgaum, North

4

55,787

50,759

49,867

27,682

13.

Bijapur, North

3

23,083

20,838

16,059

14.

Kolaba District

4

41,012

38,864

35,633

17,676

15.

Ratnagiri, North

4

13,640

10,985

10,372

11,734

STATES AND MINORITIES

435

IV. UNITED PROVINCES

Name of the Constituency

Seats

Votes polled by

Votes polled by

successful Hindu

successful Scheduled

candidates

Caste candidates

1

2

3

4

1 .

Lucknow City

2

24,614

14,110

2.

Cawnpore City

2

34,550

34,782

3.

Agra City

2

17,446

16,343

4.

Allahabad City

2

19,870

10,308

5.

Badaun District

2

6,716

14,037

6.

Jalaun District

2

21,692

15,363

7.

Basti District

2

14,450

15,447

8.

Almora District

2

36,371

20,605

9.

Rai Bareilli

2

15,917

1,889

10.

Sitapur District

2

28,665

20,204

11.

Gonda District

2

17,949

13,447

V. CENTRAL PROVINCES

Name of the Constituency

Seats

Votes polled by

Votes polled by

successful Hindu

successful Scheduled

candidates

Caste candidates

1

2

3

4

1 .

Nagpur City

2

21,905

23,595

2.

Nagpur-Umred

2

8,330

7,847

3.

Hinganghat-Wardha

2

11,677

10,781

4.

Chanda-Brahmapuri

2

10,208

8,144

5.

Chindwara- Sansacl

2

16,365

6,190

6.

Saugor-Khurai

2

7,829

5,162

7.

Raipur

2

8,183

6,112

8.

Baloda Bazar

2

21,861

9,659

9.

Bilaspur

2

13,109

6,030

10.

Mungeli

2

9,600

6,418

11.

Tanjgir

2

11,914

7,419

12.

Drug

2

5,975

5,593

13.

Bhandara- Sakoli

2

16,824

10,491

14.

Yeotmal-Daresha

2

10,915

4,719

15.

Ellichpur

2

16,298

4,592

16.

Chikhli-Mehkar

2

16,397

2,748

17.

Akola-Balapur

2

6,455

5,567

436

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

VI. ASSAM

Name of the Constituency

Seat

Votes polled by
successful Hindu
candidates

Votes polled by
successful
Scheduled
Caste candidates

1

2

3

4

5

1. Kamrup-Saor, South

3

15,890

14,971

13,693

2. Nowgong

1

14,560

3. Jorhat, North

2

17,429

5,809

4. Habibganj

2

10,985

9,770

5. Karimganj

2

12,562

11,676

6. Silchar

3

17,340

7,081

VII. ORISSA

Name of the Constituency

Seats

Votes obtained by
successful Hindu
candidates

Votes obtained by
successful Scheduled
Caste candidates

1

2

3

4

1. East Tajpur

2

8,427

8,712

2. East Burgarh

2

4,195

937

Second Series

STATES AND MINORITIES

437

0

co ^

CD d

o .3

5 £

•'S 42
+3 0
co ‘d
d >

u a

>5 T5
S-H Q)
d ^
co d
co

0 0
0

0 '-ii

s co

si*

d ^
o
0
42

Co

o

0

0

0

0

d

d

CM

CM

d

CM

d

o

o

o

o

2

2

2

2

H

ffi

H

Pc3

O

Pq

C/2

o

H

PQ

z

o

Ph

ffi

o

£

o

U

0

42

o

H O

* 3

H W

<

£

H

H §

<!

Q

5- O

S H

" H

m m
w H
G o

■4H

Q
H
4

d>
Q
w
ffi
o
O CO

Ph

o

Ph

H

pp

s

d>

2

S3
£ I
a l

O d
O

CO

^H .2 S CO

o u d P

Sh fl - ^

Q> 2

4 3 ,s «

a -S -g

^ a p
o 0
O

CO 0 +J

.2 g -2

2 a a

d hj d

3 2-o

-2 3 r, «

to ^
d £

a.s

4 -H

o

Sh

0

42

0

0 0
d co
0

3 4P

® 4P

0 +j

0 o

><! _Q
0

CO r «

«H .2 _£ «j
o 0 -5 d 0

u a t! £

iii«

o fl

O

CO

co
0
0
X
0

Jj 5 c

g 2

° -5

0

% -3

r— CJ d • pH

0 x -h -d

■S O ffi a

d

0 CO O

0

42

O) lO ^ tn

T— I ,— I T— I ^

t> ^ iO t> ^H

T— I (M T— I T— I T—i

os no ^ in

, I I I LS.J

00 ■'vf lO C> i — i

T 1 (Si ' < T 1 1 1

O O to (N lO

CO CO i — l 03 i — I

03

(N

GO

CO

d

4

d

l— H

d

bo

d

0

d

42

a

o

4

(4

s

d

m

m

d

m

CO

*C

42

d

'd

d

S

pq

PQ

d

d

<

o

PQ

i—i

oi

CO

lO

c 6

GO

438

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Third Series

RELATIVE VOTING STRENGTH OF CASTE HINDUS AND
SCHEDULED CASTES

I. MADRAS

Constituency

1

Total number of
voters in the
Constituency

2

Total number of
Scheduled Caste
voters in the
Constituency
3

Relative
proportion
of columns
2 and 3
4

1. Madras City,

26,922

4,082

1 : 6.6

South- Central

2. Chicacole

90,496

8,070

1 : 11.2

3. Amalapuram

95,954

28,282

1 : 3.4

4. Cocanada

86,932

17,616

1 : 4.9

5. Ellore

88,249

16,835

1 : 5.24

6. Ongole

1,10,152

11,233

1 : 9.8

7. Gudur

52,415

10,263

1 : 5.1

8. Cuddapah

92,572

10,842

1 : 8.5

9. Penukonda

74,952

11,896

1 : 6.3

10. Bellary

85,928

10,146

1 : 8.5

1 1 . Kurnool

72,753

11,679

1 : 6.2

12. Tirutanni

77,337

15,243

1 : 5.07

13. Chingleput

73,554

22.182

1 : 3.3

14. Tiruvallur

81,814

21,287

1 : 3.8

15. Ranipet

24,403

11,271

1 : 2.1

16. Tiruvannamalai .

97,259

15,536

1 : 6.2

17. Tindivanam

85,514

19,221

1 : 4.4

18. Chidambaram

96,086

16,762

1 : 5.7

19. Tirukoyilur

1,02,482

21,733

1 : 4.7

20. Tanjore

99,496

13,198

1 : 7.5

21. Manaargudi

69,579

11,547

1 : 5.8

22. Ariyalur

1,13,630

16,772

1 : 6.7

23. Palani

92,655

13,521

1 : 6.8

24. Sattur

84,169

8,033

1 : 10.5

25. Koilpatti

1,00,521

20,907

1 : 4.8

26. Pollachi

63,821

12,808

1 : 4.9

27. Namakkal

51,860

11,407

1 : 4.5

28. Coondapur

46,032

8,030

1 : 5.7

29. Malapuram

70,346

10,808

1 : 6.5

STATES AND MINORITIES

439

II. BOMBAY

Constituency

Total number of

Total number of

Relative

voters in the

Scheduled Caste

proportion

Constituency

voters in the

of columns

Constituency

2 and 3

1

2

3

4

General Urban

1.

Bombay City..

North and Bombay
Suburban District

1,67,002

34,266

1

4.8

2.

Bombay City —
Byculla and Parel
General Rural

1,52,991

28,520

1

5.3

3.

Kaira District

1,39,508

7,318

1

19.06

4.

Surat District

85,670

4,765

1

18.8

5.

Thana, South

67,749

4,668

1

14.5

6.

Ahmednagar, South

73,162

7,382

1

9.9

7.

East Khandesh, East

91,377

10,109

1

9.35

8.

Nasik, West

99,274

12,698

1

7.7

9.

Poona, West

73,551

13,055

1

5.6

10.

Satara, North

95,459

11,152

1

8.5

11.

Sholapur, North-East ..

64,583

9,713

1

6.6

12.

Belgaum, North

79,422

18,303

1

4.3

13.

Bijapur, North

60,655

8,993

1

6.7

14.

Kolaba District

1,03,828

5,001

1

20.7

15.

Ratnagiri, North

32,606

3,529

1

9.2

III. BENGAL

Constituency

Total number of

Total number of

Relative

voters in the

Scheduled Caste

proportion

Constituency

voters in the

of columns

Constituency

2 and 3

1

2

3

4

General Rural

1.

Burdwan, Central

74,306

24,610

1

: 3.01

2.

Burdwan, North-West ..

80,035

16,830

1

: 4.8

3.

Birbhum

1,03,231

37,637

1

: 2.7

4.

Bankura, West

84,128

25,487

1

: 3.3

5.

Midnapore, Central

99,961

20,167

1

: 4.95

6.

Jhargam-cwm-Ghatal

64,031

13,091

1

: 4.85

7.

Hooghly, North-East.

67,697

20,318

1

: 3.33

8.

Howrah

1,03,346

22,990

1

: 4.5

9.

24 Parganas, South-

82,366

47,378

1

: 1.7

West.

440

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

III. BENGAL — contd.

Constituency

Total number of

Total number of

Relative

voters in the

Scheduled Caste

proportion

Constituency

voters in the

of columns

Constituency

2 and 3

1

2

3

4

10.

24 Parganas, North-

85,477

30,607

1

: 2.78

East

11.

Nadia

90,092

25,605

1

: 3.5

12.

Murshidabad

81,083

17,176

1

: 4.8

13.

Jessore

1,21,760

55,052

1

: 2.2

14.

Khulna

1,45,335

76,848

1

: 1.87

15.

Malda

73,664

29,010

1

: 2.54

16.

Dinajpur

1,48,804

1,18,454

1

: 1.25

17.

Jalpaiguri-cum-

78,552

65,679

1

: 1.2

Siliguri

18.

Rangpur

29,437

65,679

1

: 0.44

19.

Bogra -cm /7i - Patna

87,704

33,873

1

: 2.58

20.

Dacca, East

94,858

40,238

1

: 2.35

21.

Myroensingh, West

98,795

38,046

1

: 2.59

22.

Mymensingh, East

68,360

29,588

1

: 2.3

23.

F aridpur

1,72,683

96,319

1

: 1.7

24.

Bakarganj, South-

78,796

49,014

1

: 1.6

West.

25.

Tippera

1,27,097

34,813

1

: 3.61

IV

. UNITED PROVINCES

Constituency

Total number of

Total number of

Relative

voters in the

Scheduled Caste

proportion

Constituency

voters in the

of columns

Constituency

2 and 3

1

2

3

4

General Urban

1 .

Lucknow City

89,412

9,079

1 :

: 9.8

2.

Cawnpore City

1,31,599

22,515

1 :

: 5.8

3.

Agra City

47,505

10,105

1 :

: 4.7

4.

Allahabad City
General Rural

55,379

6,854

1 :

: 8.07

5.

Charanpur District,
South-East.

47,773

7,256

1 :

: 6.5

6.

Bulandshah District,
South-East.

49,699

7,506

1 :

: 6.6

7.

Agra District, North-
East.

61,515

8,290

1 :

: 7.4

8.

Manipuri District North-
East.

51,406

5,878

1 :

: 8.7

STATES AND MINORITIES

441

IV. UNITED PROVINCES-

—Contd.

Constituency

Total number of

Total number of

Relative

voters in the

Scheduled Caste

proportion

Constituency

voters in the

of columns

Constituency

2 and 3

1

2

3

4

9.

Budaun District, East

46,966

7,087

1

6.6

10.

Jalaun District

68,815

14,611

1

4.7

11.

Mirzapur District, North.

43,648

4,045

1

10.7

12.

Gorakhpur District, North.

43,441

5,626

1

7.7

13.

Basti District, South

37,084

4,194

1

8.8

14.

Azamgarh District, West.

51,194

8,127

1

6.2

15.

Almora District

1,39,217

20,671

1

6.7

16.

Rai Bareilli District,
North-East.

48,697

10,488

1

4.6

17.

Sitapur District, North-
East.

76,682

22,913

1

3.3

18.

Fyzabad District, East.

57,154

9,988

1

5.7

19.

Gonda District, North-
East.

64,225

8,274

1

7.7

20.

Bara Banki District,
North.

68,285

16,303

1

4.18

V. CENTRAL PROVINCES

Constituency

Total number of

Total number of

Relative

voters in the

Scheduled Caste

proportion

Constituency

voters in the

of columns

Constituency

2 and 3

1

2

3

4

General Urban

1 .

Nagpur City
General Rural

72,329

14,388

1

:5.02

2.

Nagpur-Umrer

29,267

6,037

1

:4.8

3.

Hinghanghat-Wardha

35,201

4,011

1

:9.02

4.

Chanda - Br ahmapuri

30,132

5,229

1

:5.7

5.

Chindwara- Sausar

37,942

3,914

1

:9.7

6.

Jubulpure-Patan

20,587

1,186

1

:17.5

7.

Saugor-Khurai

30,660

5,224

1

:5.8

8.

Damoh-Hatta

33,284

3,608

1

:9.2

9.

Narsinghpur-

Gadarwara.

35,781

2,019

1

:17.6

10.

Raipur

33,053

11,041

1

:2.9

442 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

V. CENTRAL PROVINCES— contd.

Constituency

Total number of

Total number of

Relative

voters in the

Scheduled Caste

proportion

Constituency

voters in the

of columns

Constituency

2 and 3

1

2

3

4

11.

Baloda Bazar

46,943

15,636

1 : 3.06

12.

Bilaspur . .

33,260

10,547

1 : 3.1

13.

Mungeli . .

28,028

10,067

1 : 2.7

14.

Janjgir . .

42,763

13,558

1 : 3.15

15.

Drug . .

34,883

8,942

1 : 3.19

16.

Bhandara-Sakoli . .

47,047

10,399

1 : 4.5

17.

Ellichpur-Dartapur-

30,094

2,885

1 :13.8

Nelghat

18.

Akola-Belapur . .

25,912

3,233

1 : 9.81

19.

Yeotmal-Darwha . .

20,327

2,020

1 :10.06

20.

Chikhli-Mehkar . .

37,936

3,468

1 : 1.09

VI. BIHAR

Constituency

Total number

Total number of

Relative

of voters in

Scheduled Caste

proportion

the

voters in the

of columns

Constituency

Constituency

2 and 3

1

2

3

4

1.

East Bihar

35,631

4,618

1 :7.7

2.

South Gaya

49,363

10,360

1 :4.7

3.

Nawada

41,432

7,684

1 :5.3

4.

East Central Shahabad.

41,707

5,984

1 :6.9

5.

West Gopalganj

33,395

3,415

1 :9.7

6.

North Bettiah

25,760

2,831

1 :9.09

7.

East Muzaffarpur-Sadr.

27,271

3,133

1 :8.7

8.

Darbhanga Sadr

26,864

2,116

1 :12.6

9.

South-East Samastipur

37,291

2,672

1 :13.9

10.

South Sadr-Monghyr

54,229

6,465

1 :8.5

11.

Madhipura

26,523

1,284

1 :20.6

12.

South-West Purnea

44,232

2,938

1 :15.05

13.

Giridih-cum-Ghatra

55,246

4,667

1 :11.8

14.

North-East Palamnu

23,072

4,237

1 :5.3

15.

Central Manbhum

39,626

5,617

1 :7.05

STATES AND MINORITIES

443

VII. ASSAM

Constituency

Total number of
voters in the
Constituency

Total number of
Scheduled
Caste

voters in the
Constituency

Relative
proportion
of columns
2 and 3

1

2

3

4

1.

Nowgong, North-
East

26,618

3,569

1

: 7.2

2.

Kamrup Sadr, South

33,234

2,117

1 :

15.6

3.

Silchar

38,647

4,201

1

: 9.2

4.

Karimganj, East

25,701

10,132

1

: 2.5

5.

Jorhat, North

26,733

1,360

1 :

19.6

6.

Jonamganj

39,045

11,603

1

: 3.3

7.

Habibganj, North

31,511

9,996

1

: 3.1

VIII. PUNJAB

Constituency

Total number
of voters
in the

Constituency

Total number of
Scheduled Caste
voters in the
Constituency

Relative
proportion
of columns
2 and 3

1

2

3

4

1.

South-East Gurgaon

37,815

6,049

1 :

6.2

2.

Karnal, North

31,967

5,120

1 :

6.2

3.

Ambala and Simla

47,403

17,507

1 :

3.27

4.

Hoshiarpur, West

51,084

7,281

1 :

7.0

5.

Jullundur

36,570

20,521

1 :

1.8

6.

Ludhiana and Ferozepur

52,009

27,354

1 :

1.8

7.

Amritsar and Sialkot

38,046

10,328

1 :

3.68

8.

Lyallpur and Jhang

32,703

7,602

1 :

4.2

444

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

£

O

I— I

H

O

W

P

w

2;

l—H

P

£

<1

2:

o

S3 £

m H
£ P

tn H

3 Z

O >H

p £

Ph

p

p

o

2 ;

o

m

I— I

P

<d

p

§

o

o

m

<

P

9

P 0

■g-g

cd j>

a p ©
£-1

d

^ o

Td

co ^ 2 p ©
0 ) S rC 3 .S
4J-H -P - 1 '

O cd
> d

cu

' Oh '®

bn ►>>

S' ©
,.S d

-p 0

0

co p

o pH d

a o -

a^l°

bh p d
2 r © a)
^ .3 a d

co co d .-p

S cd 0 ) 3
d

o

O

JP o
d P
O "t?

a

cd

cd

p

£

^ d
co be g
0 .pi

3 .S t 3

§ 'S *" JJ

SH >3 -B *“

§ |

K “I

P

0

a

a

£’

cd

£

2 s

O

£ *>

Cd ®
Td i— i

ipd cd

l.s

cd

03 3
03

'dd S

0 o

3 §

T5 CO
0

cd

*-S

M a -

ay

a cd
o d 0

CO P P

a cd

< PQ

a

(M

oo

Od a^

a" co"

a

CD

lO

of

O

"5*

a

0

p

cd

PQ

o

CD

05

a

to

oo

a

m

tO

Od

00^

of

O >1

1%

a .o

0 d 1

£ cd

< pq

O to
co to
a^

of of

0

0

0

a

a

,cd

Ph

Ph

Ph

s —

Td

p

-p

d

CO

oq

d

Td

d

£
a oq
bo be

a a

2 -43

a cd

cd £

d

dd

d

CD

a
b0 g>

d .a

2 3

d ™
d 0

d ad
d Cd
1°

4

be SfOl

g

co ,

0

a

d

Td

d cd

£o

5 Ol £

CO

d

Td

d

3

d

Td

d

^ <m ,§ a cq w g

to ;

d

d

be be hn ^

g.s s 10

■ ^ o

be

1 « S s * 1 « a

g 3 ^ cC 3 3 c3

-p

co

I-5-*

Td w
d

-p

co

-p

CO

a “e

-p

co

cd ^ ^
d

-p

co

r— 1

oq

a

1—1

a

oq

a

CO H3

$ g

i—i

to

oq

oq

CD

oq

CO

oq

CO

a

i—i

>3 ^

to

to

Od :

i—i

1—1

a

i—l

^ CJ

oo"

oo"

o"

oo"

of

to"

o"

P-i <D
o CO

oq

t>

1—1

CO

oq

CO

a

be

3 <N
=? be

«.S

l!

oq o

to

oo

o

to"

be

d

o

O

be

d

o

O

cd a h

^s s 3

3 5 2

^d > _p
£j co CO

cd

fa pq

be

d

o

O

cd

a

p

d

W

2S

3

be

d

o

O

cd

>b

>b

cd

be

cd

cd

d

p

cd

£

CO

be

d

o

O

be

d

o

O

cd

a

_a

‘p

Td

cd

w

0

>

cd

be

d

cd

dP

H

Oh’

be

d

o

O

cd

Td

p

cd

A

d

W

W

be

d

o

Q

cd

£

’o

>

o

o

bo

cd

'£

H

CO CO
CO CO
0 0
p p

be be
d d
o o
O O

d

cd

rd

| 1

rrl

W p
d §

d

cd

cd

d

s

3

p

cd

■"d

rd

"O

cd

cd

d

d

cd

d

d

d

be

a

cd

3

a

cd

d

cd

0

c

P

cd

Td

d

cd

a

cd

Td

Td

d

o

rd

d

d

0

d

cd

>

d

p

cd

>

3

d

p

cd

d

d

cd

3

o

3

3

<

O

PQ

O

Pa

H

H

§

PLh

t-H

oq

co

a

to

CD

oo

05

and 1 Sch. Caste)

STATES AND MINORITIES

445

as

£

E? o

as ^

s ®

s 'TS

Ph

'dd

cd

CO

0

4J

o

0 0
Cd ,£!
cd

s_i s

a .2

a -s

t>

GO

CO

GO

05

>

■+J g

■S - S

■a s

PP OS

cm"

cm"

cd cd

PL. g

O —

2 '£ o

F^H O

-L’ 0) 0

"a; 5

P bo
S Cd
M 'CO

a

gj2

cd

Ph

0

1 ^

cd

0

cd 0

be

0

a>

M -L 1

d °d

§ 3

+H

P F^

w cd

•rH Cd

-t-J

rCd

be

ffi «

cd

c2

cd

£

J g

0 0)
3 ®

Td -h

id cd

1 .B

cd

o

0 .a

+H

CQ F-H

cd

O CO

Td $
<D U

3 §

Td CO

0

<u

C/2

o

O

0 a)
-Q if

QQ cd ;

a c

ph cd
0 0

fD cd

cd 0 co

CO ^ Q

* 6

CQ -Td
' 0

X

'dd

"dd

0

0

0

3

’cd

3

«HH

<4 h

«HH

"dd

T5

cd

cd

cd

CM

CM

CM

t>

0
>
c

■§

CO bO

bo .S 'co bo .3

Cl Td d C! T3

o £dO O £3

& $ .5 S *

03 w ffi 03 w

■4J 4J

CO CO

CO

CM 0

4-p

0 cd

> Td

jb ^

cd Cd

g g
a td

cd 0

bo

cd

o

o

cd

Td

cd .

O |

a §

cd

p cd

cd o

> ™
cd

m

O

>»

jo f£

a I

O O

PQ £

io

(N

co"

bo

cd

o

o

cd

F^

o

u

c?

w

m

4J ^

s S
>>
cd

fO

> Td

cd

CM

CD

CO

CD

CO

bo

cd

o

O

cd

cd

>>

w

3

3

cd g

^ 0 ■+■? 4H>

d O Ph CO CO

o >i cd cd cd

CQ pQ Pl, H H

£3 0

H 0

.9 S

P F^

Td >»

co 0 0 p

0 Cd rDl Cd

d -a a

d -5 ^

O Ph

bo

cd cd
a 0

o, g

.2 ^

cd >>

0 0 o
d bO Ph P

^ 2h 0 0

Q .5 fD ?

to ® C f
rH L _n

cd 0

0 •£ O 0

0 0
Id ^

cd

o

o

cd

&

£ |

S o

0 0

d p

^ f— H

id ^

1 ,s

a Pn

55 cS

O <8

dd 0
0 0

3 §

Td co
0
X
o
C/2

cd

0 pH

be g

0 •£

,£3 0

be

D

o

w co t3
0 0 0

cd

& |

H cd

cd dd

a cm

0

be

cd

o

O

cd

a

be

cd

£

CD

LD

X

+j

r dd Td

cd cd

CM CM

bo

cd

o

O

cd

« Id

x

-+n

cd cd s*

"dd ^ Li

h d 0

cd ^

0 F^d cd

^ 0 cd

0 PH

hP 02

cd

F^d

bo

cd

cd

rH

fDJ

bo t3

.a a

SC ^

CM

Bhandra-Sakoli Harnuji Isram Congress 10,491 2nd 3rd (failed) 471

Yeotmal-Darwha Daulat-Luxman Congress 4,719 2nd 3rd (failed) 126

446

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

d a?

cd

h A

2 o

A M

A

d

0 0
d A

sj id

a .2

CO

1—1

o

t>

cd ^

-p d
■§ - s

£ d
•a ij

Ph ®

t>

CO

GO

1— 1

co

Od

be rt 1

d

cd cd

A 9

2 r£

Pi >>

3 0

d r ho ^ ^

P w ® 0)

£ .S rO 2

co co d +3 cd
~ a ® m
d
o

d

o

O co

0 0

' A

g> o g

5 .3 ®

2 £ C5

d ^ d

cC co be §

-P 0 +3

^ ^ d u

P d A 0

3 s|

ffi u g

*PH

cd

o

a

&

A!

^ o
Q) 0

3 T 3

^ i“H

d cd

1 ,s

a Ph

o

a ,3

o *8

d 0
0 y

3 §

d co
0
a

o

m

CO

0

T3

CO

oo

-pi

p

o

o

o

>

d

CO

co

co

0

co"

o

o'

*4-1

o

0

CO

1— 1

1—1

(N

cd ;

a c

d

o

O

o o
>>>>>>

^ a-a a

cd to cd to
S t5 S
0 g 0 g

^ cd ^ Cd
cd cd
CQ

PQ

be

d

o

O

be

c

o

-S

a

■§

■s

A A

d d

(N (M

bo

d

o

O

be

d

o

O

m

C

A

£

£

Ph

,rH d

CO o
co '13
0 o

0 CD

0 i— H

d 0)

0

d

A

o

>

^ d

0

A

S_i S

a .2

+a

a d

l>

CO

(N

CO

.s

■a ^

Ph ®

in

co

s*.

1—1

d

• <M

• i—l

CO

1—1

1—1

lO 1—1

CO

. 00

1—1

Ml

cd d
d cd

0

0

0

3 be ^ fl

- g 0 0

2 A

0 0
' A

W> O
d d

r\ , -r H

_Q d

CO s d .-d CD
H cd 2 w
d
o
O

d
o

O co

cd

_

_

T3

T3

'TS'

Td

0

0

0

0

cd

cd

cd

*4H

*M

*4—4

-pa

4^ d

+a

A

"d

co

CO P

p

CO

-pa

d

i— i

1-1 CO

CO

1—1

rt<

(N

£

co be 5

0 -M

p 0 -p

cd ^ o

-P 0

Pi d

d

cd

&

Ja _o

^ o

0 0

3 ®

A f— H
id cd

1 A

cd a

r d 0

0 0

m

a

bo

d

,S

d

£ '|
cd ,
a id
0-
cd

2 co

ffi

d

o

O

a

m

cd

PQ

A A
d d
CM (N

T3 -p -p A

d eg eg d

(N ,—l 1—1 CN

CO

0

"d

0

CO

co co

t>

CO

(N

(N

o

p

o

co o

o

Id

i—i

>

d

t>

T— 1 LO

CO

CO

CO

*4H

0

0

co" o'

co"

1—1

oo"

o

CO

1—1

1—1

(M

CO CO
CO CO
0 0
p p

bo bo
d d
o o
UO

A

cd

CO CO CO
CO CO CO
0 0 0
p p p

bo bo bo
d d d
o o o
UUO

<

A

A

bo

d

bo

• S

a

A

d

d

m ^

cd

be

fl

m

cd

a a
+j cd

a

m

p ’>

O

d a

0 A

cd .

A

g

A A

p

a d

A

0

p

a

d

rd

p d

f-l

d ‘ p

m a

0

s

d ^

oS

cd

a

r-d Cd

5 o

cd

W

3 d

cd

_ 4 ~ cd
cd

o £ ■§

cd d

|j &
111
a d A
co ^ d

ffid j

bo

d

cd

A

A

p a

3 c

a cd

0

N P

o d
p a
0 At

^ Id
>>

hd

<N CO ^ lO 0

STATES AND MINORITIES

447

Appendix IV

STATISTICS OF POPULATION

The population of the Scheduled Caste in 1941 is estimated at 48,793,180.
Can this figure be accepted as accurate ?

In coming to a definite conclusion on this issue the following points must
be borne in mind : —

(i) The population of the Scheduled Castes in 1941 as compared with
their population in 1931 shows a decline.

(ii) The population of all other communities during the same period
shows an increase of 15 per cent.

The question is whether there is any special reason why the population
of the Scheduled Castes should have declined.

Was the basis for computation of the population of the Scheduled Castes
in 1931 the same as in 1941 ? The answer is in the affirmative. The figures
given for 1931 are the result of recasting of the Census of 1931 in the
light of the definition of “Untouchables” given by the Lothian Committee.
The same basis was adopted in 1941. It cannot therefore be said that the
decline in the population of the Scheduled Castes in 1941 was due to an
over-estimate made in 1931.

It is true that the Census for 1941 does not give any figures for the
Scheduled Castes for Ajmer-Merwara and Gwalior State. But even adding to
the total for 1941 the figures for these two areas as they stood in 1931 the
population comes to only 49,538,145 which still shows a comparative decline.

The want of any proper explanation for the decline of the Scheduled Caste
population and an increase in the population of all other communities during
the same decade only reinforces the impression which every honest student
of Indian census has formed namely that the Census of India has over a
number of decades ceased to be an operation in demography. It has become
a political affair. Every community seems to be attempting to artificially
augment its numbers at the cost of some other community for the sake of
capturing greater and greater degree of political power in its own hands.
The Scheduled Castes seem to have been made a common victim for the
satisfaction of the combined greed of the other communities who through
their propagandists or enumerators are able to control the operation and
the results of the Census.

In the light of these circumstances it is fair to demand that an accurate
figure for the population of the Scheduled Castes would be the Census
figure as corrected by the inclusion of the population for Ajmer-Merwara
and Gwalior State plus an increase of 15 per cent to give them the benefit
of the general rise in the population.

POPULATION FIGURES

448

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

X

a

H

05

o

m

P

m

X

H

O

H

X

E-i

O

Eh

O
£
i— i

Q

PS

O

o

o

m

H

O

O

Eh

£

H

PS

H

Ph

Ph

o

z

o

I— I

Eh

c

-

p

Ph

o

PM

cd

PM

o g

'bo .2

< £

o

® CO

T3 co

'S ^

CO

3

T3

ti

Cd

ID

o

CO

CD

Cd

3

ID

cd

3

oo

o

o

T— 1

CD

CO

i—l

1—1

3

3

cd

cd

O

cd

3

CO

Cd

ID

q

cq

cd

3

3

cq

3^

cd"

co"

1—1

Cd"

1—1

Cd"

1—1

oo

-t

1—1

1—1

<D

i—i

i— i

ID

CO

03

CO

03

1—1

co

3

3

1—1

t>

1—1

3

3

Cd

CD

O

CO

CD

i—l

CD

oo

CO

CO

co

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

cd

CO

CD

CD

Cd

CD_

03„

o

t>

iq

q

3

3

00

3

q

i—l

i—l

id"

cd"

3 "

3"

id"

3

3"

3 "

CO

1—1

CO

i—i

cd

1—1

Cd

1—1

1—1

ID

o

CO

CO

CO

cd

cd

3

3

cd

3

3

t>

3

ID

CD

03

ID

CO

Cd

03

oo

i—i

CO

3

3

3

3

cd

3

ID

3

O

00

CD,

CD

ID

00

cd^

cq

q

q

3

q

3

3_

3

cq

l>

co"

t>

cT

o"

cd"

oo"

co"

go"

3 "

3 "

1—1

id"

3"

1—1

3 "

CO

T— 1

Cd

cd

CO

1—1

1— 1

3

3

3

3

1—1

CO

3

1—1

t>

3

<N

Cd"

Cd"

3 "

co"

t>

oo

1—1

CO

cd

1—1

3

t>

3

3

i—i

ID

3

t>

CD

CD

1—1

oo

1—1

CO

1—1

3

ID

1—1

3

3

ID

03

00

q

°l

cd

Cd

Cd

o

<3

^4

1—1

3 ^

q

q

3

q

O

co"

1—1

cd"

co"

cd"

i—i

3"

t>"

t>"

cd"

3"

1—1

tO^

1—1

1—1

1— 1

CO

i—i

1—1

10

ID

3

Cd

3

CD

t>

cd

iq

q

i— l

3"

1—1

id"

03

03

o

i—i

oo

ID

t>

3

1—1

cd

t>

cd

3

3

3

CO

03

CO

CO

1—1

o

CD

cd

3

3

ID

3

3

3

3

o

00

q

q

CO

CO

cq

CO

cq

0

3

t>

q

3

iq

3

ID

03"

cm"

oo"

id"

cd"

cd"

o"

oo"

co

3"

3 "

t>

3 "

3 "

3 "

oo"

oo

CO

o

t-H

cd

o

3

1—1

3

3

3

1—1

1—1

ID

ID

03

q

o_

1—1

cd„

t>

3

3

to-

cd

q

cq

q

CO

co"

co"

i—i

co"

3"

ed"

3 "

3 "

cd"

cd"

03"

CO

1—1

1—1

3

t>

i— 1

Cd

o

03

1—1

00

CO

3

3

cd

o-

ID

3

3

3

t>

03

o

t>

t>

t>

CO

1—1

3

3

3

ID

t>

3

o

Cd

1—1

03^

cq

1—1

1—1

cq

q

cq

3

1—1

cq

1— 1

00

_ t

cd"

id"

oo"

o"

oo"

id"

1— 1

i—i

id"

Cd"

3"

3"

t>

Cd"

3"

o"

t>

t>

co

ID

03

ID

Cd

cd

3

1—1

3

1—1

Cd

CD

co

CO

cd„

cq

i— l

o

1—1

3

cq

t>

oq

3

t>

i—i

i—i

co"

3"

1—1

1—1

3 "

3"

03"

1—1

CO

i—i

CM

1—1

o

ID

cd

cd

CO

3

cd

3

1—1

t>

1—1

3

3

GO

CO

Cd

ID

03

CO

03

3

3

3

cd

3

1—1

3

cd

CD

03

iq

o

cq

iq

cd^

cd

iq

q

ID

cq

cq

t>

iq

1—1

cq

i—i

cd"

cd"

03"

o"

co"

o"

oo"

3 "

16

1—1

3 "

1—1

t>"

t>

00

CO

oo

t>

03

o

CO

3

3

3

3

3

3

DI

1—1

CO

lO

cq

i— i

iq

<3

3

1—1

t>

1—1

3

q

cq

T— 1

oo

co"

t>"

cd"

id"

i—i

03

■sf

3 "

id"

3"

i—i

cd

1—1

3

3

ID

3

o

Cd

ID

i—i

P <1 <

fl

co

'S Id
§ bo

cd 0

P P P

0

P

"O

fl

cd

cd

A

>>

cd

P

S

O

co

* P

P

rH 0

O P CO O O

0

cd

CO

p

0

’3

a

0

bfl

<*J

P

C

cd

co

0

-4-3

cd

-4-3

CO

CD

ID

<N

co"

i-H

t>

cd"

m

H

PQ

HH

Ph

H

CO

CD

CD

g

o

5h

Ph

States and Agencies .. .. 8,728,233

INDIA .. .. 25,441,489

Variation in Population by Communities, 1931-1941

STATES AND MINORITIES

449

+ J,

c n ®

tS eS
^ V

H

o u
fl ®
Q

CO

0

1—1

CO

CO

00

0

bo

10

Od

10

l>

co

co

Od

LO

LO

cq

t>

1—1

, 1

cd

cm"

t>"

1—1

10"

Od"

LO"

a

4 -P

CO

If

co

LO

1—1

O

C

0

t>

If

CO

cq

+

+

Eh

0

co"

|

If"

1—1

Sh

CM

1—1

0

+

a

+

+

2

CO

O

CO

Od

O

CM

co

Od

if

1—1

Od

3

CO

1—1

q

if

1—1

cq

s

t>

co"

00"

1—1

co"

if"

1—1

CO

1—1

Od

LO

Od

1—1

1—1

3

1— 1

t>

<0

cq.

co

1—1

co"

00"

cm"

10"

co"

O

0

If

Od

H

CM

O

CO

co

0

Od

CM

C

0

co

t>

Od

LO

1—1

cm

Cd

.0

1—1

CO

LO„

CO

1—1

Od

CO

Q)

*0

10

t>

cm"

Od"

co"

If"

cm"

s

CM

Od

LO

CM

CO

1—1

•+J

0

CM

co

cq

LO

00

a

bo

cd

10"

00"

cm"

i—l

cm"

lO

1—1

CO

t>

CO

t>

0

00

CO

If

0

0

Od

CO

CO

0

r — 1

00

iq

O

If

Od

0

a

1

O"

0"

co"

LO"

1—1

1—1

if

Od

CM

Od

CO

0

0

CO

Od

eq

1—1

If

1—1

Jh

0"

Od"

Od"

If"

co"

PLh

10

1—1

CO

i>

0

0

LO

1—1

CO

CM

t>

l>

If

t>

co

10

"3

CO

t>

iq

t>

i>

t>

a

If"

0"

t>

LO"

co"

Od"

1—1

CO

10

If

i>

CO

Od

0

3

+P>

CO„

10

cq

cq

CM

1—1

Od"

Od"

i>

if"

co"

o

co

If

0

Eh

1 — 1

i—l

1—1

CM

if

CO

CO

£

cd

co

Od

CO

O

i>

0

0

.0

CO

t>

1—1

t>

1—1

cq

CO

0

+J

’0

10"

1—1

l>"

if"

0"

co"

£

CM

CO

CO

LO

1—1

CO

1—1

0

CO

1—1

cq.

1—1

If

cd

bo

cd

0"

1—1

0"

1—1

cm"

10

1—1

1—1

Od

Od

CO

t>

0

Od

CO

0

0

If

Od

CO

if

0

0

If

Od

cq_

LO

Od"

Od"

0 "

0 "

0 "

co"

’£

^H

1—1

0

CM

CM

co

Od

co

If

O

cq

cq

O

?h

Od"

co"

l>"

co"

co"

Ph

co

1—1

CO

CO

02

0

0

cd

0

13

CO

Q)

CO

cd

co

3

g

2

13

13

0

-4

CO

CO

V>

co

CO

'co

fl

s

^3

0

m

3

§

m

%4

A

O

5-1

cd

Ph

PART V

ON ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

11

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA
AND

THEIR REMEDIES

Published : Journal of the Indian Economic Society

Vol. I, 1918

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND
THEIR REMEDIES

i

IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURE

A study of the economic ways of getting a living will ever remain important.
These ways generally take the form of industries or services. Confining
ourselves to industries, they may be divided into primary and secondary.
The primary industries are concerned with extracting useful material from
the earth, the soil or water and take the form of hunting, fishing, stock-
raising, lumbering and mining. These primary or extractive industries are
fundamental in two ways : (1) They extract from the physical world useful
materials which become the original sources of man’s subsistence. (2) They
provide raw materials for the secondary or manufacturing industries, for,
manufactures, in the language of Dr. Franklin, are simply, “substance
metamorphosed”. From a national point of view as well, the importance
of primary industries is beyond question. But important as are the
primary industries, farming is by far the most important of them all. It is
most ancient and abiding of all industries, primary or secondary : while the
fact that it is concerned with the production of food is enough to make its
problems demand our most serious thought. But when a country, like India,
depends almost wholly upon farming its importance cannot be exaggerated.
The problems of agricultural economy dealing directly with agricultural
production are what to produce, the proper proportion of the factors of
production, the size of holdings, the tenures of land etc. In this paper it is
attempted to deal only with the problem of the size of holdings as it affects
the productivity of agriculture.

II

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA

It may be said that some countries are predominantly countries of small
holdings while in others it is the large holdings that prevail. According to

456

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Adam Smith it is the adoption of the law of primogeniture chiefly due to
the exigencies of a military life that leads to the creation and preservation
of large holdings. While it is the adoption of the law of equal sub-division
necessitated by the comparatively peaceful career of a nation that gives rise
to small holdings. He says : —

“When land like moveables is considered as the means only of subsistence
and enjoyment, the natural law of succession divides it like them among all
the children of the family ; of all of whom the subsistence and enjoyment may
be aupposed equally dear to the father, [thus tending to have small holdings].
But when land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of
power and protection it was thought better that it should descend undivided

to one. In those disorderly times to divide it was to ruin it, and to expose

every part of it to be opposed and swallowed up by its neighbours. The law of
primogeniture, therefore came to take place in the succession of landed estates
[thus tending to preserve large holdings]” 1

England is, therefore, a country of large holdings. Post-Revolutionary
France is a country of small holdings. So are Holland and Denmark. Turning
to India, we find holdings of the following size held separate and direct for
the years 1896-97 and 1900-01 :

Average area of holdings in acres

Years

Assam

Bombay

Central Provinces

Madras

1896-97 .

3.37

24.07

17

7

1900-01 .

3.02

23.9

48

7

Data, more recent, more exact, though from more restricted area, is
available from the Baroda State. 2 Statistics of land holdings in the State
are summarised in bighas in the following table : 3

Name of the
District

Total

Agricul-

tural

land

Survey No.
into which
it is divided

Number

of

Khatedars

Average

under

Khatedar

Average
area per
Survey
No.

Baroda

17,17,319

4,30,601

107,638

15—19—2

4

Kadi

25,13,982

5,89,687

141,145

17—16—5

414

Naosari

10,46,176

2,16,748

52,652

19—17—8

4

Amveli

9,72,040

55,635

17,214

36—9—7

314

Total

82,49,517

12,92,671

318,649

17—10—10

3 7 / 8

(8 bighas = 5 acres)

1. Wealth of Nations. Bk. Ill Ch. 11.

2. Report of the Committee appointed to make proposals on the Consolidation of Small and
Scattered holdings in the Baroda State, 1917. This will be throughout referred to as R.B.C.

3. ibid., p. 3

SM AL T i HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

457

Another investigation conducted by Dr. H. S. Mann and his colleagues
indicates more specifically the fact of small holdings in the village of Pimpala
Saudagar near Poona. The size of holdings in that village is indicated by
the table below 4 :

Over 20 acres

10 to 20 acres

5 to 10 acres

3 to 5 acres

2 to 3 acres

1 to 2 acres

30 to 40 gunthas

20 to 30 gunthas

15 to 20 gunthas

10 to 15 gunthas

5 to 10 gunthas

Below 5 gunthas

Number of
plots of each

1

7

21

25

67

164

75

116

71

57

59

25

size.

(40 Gunthas = 1 acre)

In this table the model holding is between 1 and 2 acres. A mode is a statistical average
indicating the point of largest frequency in an array of instances.

From these tables it can be easily seen that the average size of holdings
varies from 25.9 acres in the Bombay Presidency to an acre or two in
Pimpala Saudagar.

This diminutive size of holdings is said to be greatly harmful to Indian
Agriculture. The evils of small holdings no doubt, are many. But it would
have been no slight mitigation of them if the small holdings were compact
holdings. Unfortunately they are not. A holding of a farmer though compact
for purposes of revenue is for purposes of tillage composed of various
small strips of land scattered all over the village and interspersed by
those belonging to others. How the fields are scattered can only be shown
graphically by a map. Herein we shall have to remain content, since we
cannot give a map, with knowing how many separate plots are contained
in a holding. The number of separate plots in each holding will show how
greatly fragmented it is. We have no figures at all for the whole of India
bearing on this aspect of the question. But the Hon’ble Mr. G. F. Keatinge
in his note 5 submitted to Government in 1916 has collected figures of typical

4. Land and Labour in a Deccan Village 1927, p. 48.

5. The author is thankful to him for a copy of this valuable note.

458

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

cases from all the districts of the Bombay Presidency. The following table
is constructed to present his data in an intelligible form :

Case II Case V Case VI Case VII Case IX Case X Case XII

V. Shirgaon V. Badlapur V. Kara V. Althan Surat Kairs V. Lhasurna

T. Ratnagiri T. Kalyan T. Mawal T. Ghorssi District District T. Koregaon
D. Ratnagiri D. Thana D. Poona D. Surat D. Satara

These small and scattered holdings have given a real cause for anxiety
regarding our great national industry. Comparative Statistics go to swell this
feeling by laying bare two very noteworthy but equally sad facts regarding
economic life in India; (1) that it is largely an agricultural country ;* and
(2) that its agricultural productivity is the lowestf —

* (1) Occupational Statistics

England and
Wales

Ireland

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Denmark

France

Germany

Holland

Hungary

Italy

Russia

Switzerland

India

U.S.A

Percentage of Agricul-
tural Population.

15.3

44.7

60.9

20.7

82.6

48.2

42.7

35.2

30.7

69.7

59.4

58.3

30.9

71.5

33.3

f(2) Produce in Lbs. per acre

U.K

Canada

New Zealand

Austria

Egypt

France

Germany

Hungary

Japan

U.S.A.

Turkey

Indian Provinces

UP.

N.WP.

Punjab

Bombay

U Burma

Wheat

1973

1054

1723

1150

1634

1172

1796

1056

1176

1318

850

555

555

510

322

Maize

3487

3191

1135

2059

1097

1489

1525

1372

1100

735

766

SM AL T i HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

459

Both these truths are painful enough to have startled many people into
inquiring the causes of this low productivity. As a result, attention has
now been concentrated on the excessive sub-division and fragmentation of
agricultural holdings. Enlarge and consolidate the holdings, it is confidently
argued, and the increase in agricultural productivity will follow in its wake!!

Ill

CONSOLIDATION

Consolidation of holdings is a practical problem while the enlargement of
them is a theoretical one, demanding a discussion of the principle which can
be said to govern their size. Postponing the consideration of the theoretical
question of enlargement, we find that the problem of consolidation raises the
following two issues: — (1) how to unite such small and scattered holdings as
the existing ones, and (2) once consolidated how to perpetuate them at that
size. Let us consider them each in turn. Sub-division of land need not involve
what is called the fragmentation of land. But unfortunately it does, for, every
heir desires to secure a share from each of the survey numbers composing
the entire lands of the deceased instead of so arranging the distribution that
each may get as many whole numbers as possible, i.e. the heirs instead of
sharing the lands by survey numbers, claim to share in each survey number,
thus causing fragmentation. Though fragmentation does subserve the ends
of distributive justice it renders farming in India considerably inefficient
as it once did in Europe. It involves waste of labour and cattle power,
waste in hedges and boundary marks, and waste of manure. It renders
impracticable the watching of crops, sinking of wells and the use of labour
saving implements. It makes difficult changes in cultivation, the making of
roads, water channels, etc., and it increases the cost of production. These
disadvantages of fragmentation arc to be recounted only to lend their support
to the process of restripping or consolidation. The methods of “restripping” are
many, though all are not equally efficacious. Voluntary exchanges can hardly
be relied upon for much. But a restricted sale of the right of occupancy may
be expected to go a good deal. For, under it, when survey numbers are put
to auction on account of their being relinquished by the holders or taken in
attachment for arrears of assessments, only those may be allowed to bid in
the auction for the sale of the right of occupancy whose lands are contiguous
to the land hammered out. Again as further helping the process of reunion,
the right of pre-emption may be given to farmers whose neighbour wishes to
sell his land. These methods, it must be admitted, can achieve the desired
result in a very small measure. The evils of fragmentation are very great
and must be met by a comprehensive scheme of consolidation. It is, therefore,
advocated* that if two-thirds of the Khiatedars, dealing more than half of

*RBC, p. 38.

460

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the village lands, apply, Government, should undertake compulsorily to
restrip the scattered fields of the village. This compulsory restripping
is to be executed on two principles, (1) of “Economic Unit” and (2) of
“Original Ownership”. Regarding the merits of these two principles the
Baroda Committee observes. 6

“In the first the value of each holding is ascertained, then the
original boundaries are removed, roads are marked out, lands required
for public purposes are set apart, and the rest of the land is parcelled
out into new plots. Each of these new plots must be of such a size
as, having regard to the local conditions of soil, tillage etc. to form an
economic field, i.e., a parcel of land necessary to keep fully engaged
and support one family. These new plots may be sold by auction among
the old occupants, restriction being placed on purchase so as to prevent
a large number of cultivators from being ousted. The purchase, money
may then be divided in a certain proportion among the original owners
of pieces, a portion being reserved for expenses, in which Government
would also contribute a share. Another mode would be to acquire all
the land of the village then to sell it in newly constituted plots by
auction as is done by City Improvement Trusts or by Government
when laying out new roads in Cities or when extending a town. But
we do not recommend its adoption in the improvement of agricultural
land. It may result in land speculation and the small holders may be
ousted in such numbers as to cause a real hardship.”

“According to the second method when the restripping has been
decided, a list of Khatedars and their holdings is made and the
latter are valued at their market price by Panchas. Then the land is
redistributed and each Khatedar is given new land in proportion to his
original holding and as far as possible of the same value, difference to
be adjusted by cash payment. In this method no Khatedar is deprived
of his land. Each is accommodated and in the place of his original
small and scattered fields gets one plot of almost their aggregate size.

It is only a few people whose holding may be very small and whom it
would not be expedient to keep on as farmers, that may have to lose
their small pieces. But they too would benefit as they would get their
full value in money.”

The Baroda Committee prefers the second method because:

“It takes as its starting principle, that nobody (except perhaps a few,
holding plots of insignificant sizes) is going to be driven off the land. It
will give even the smallest man, chance to better his condition. Each
land holder receives a new compact piece of land proportionate to the

6. R. B. C, p. 35

SM AL T i HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

461

value of his old small and scattered field. In this way the previous sub-
divisions together with their attendant evils totally disappear .” 7

Regarding consolidation, Prof. H. S. Jevons says:

“The principles which should guide the choice of a method of carrying
out the re-organization of villages on the lines above described are the
following. In the first place compulsion should be avoided as far as
possible and the principle adopted that no charge should be imposed
upon any area unless the owners of more than one-half of that area

desire the change. Should this condition be satisfied for an area it

would seem expedient that legal power should be taken to compel the
minority to accept the redistribution of holdings under the supervision

of Government. In the second place the expense of the operation

should be kept as low as possible In the third place considerable

elasticity should be permitted in the methods of carrying through
the re-organization in the different places during the first few years,
as the whole undertaking would be in an experimental stage so that
different methods might be tried, and the best be ultimately selected
for a permanent set of regulations. Fourthly, the possible necessity for
a considerable change of the existing tenancy law in the re-organised

villages must be faced For the sake of completeness I may

add as a fifth principle the obvious condition that redistribution of land
must be made upon the most equitable basis possible, and that liberal
compensation should be given to those, if any, who may be excluded
from a former cultivating ownership.” 8

As for procedure in the compulsory consolidation of holdings both
Prof. Jevons and the Baroda Committee propose the appointment of
Commissioners to hear applications for consolidation and to carry it out,
leaving to any objector the right to petition the Court to stay the proceedings
in case he felt that an injustice was being done to him.

The problem of perpetuating such a consolidated holding will next demand
the care of the legislator. It is accepted without question by many that the
law of inheritance that prevails among the Hindus and the Mohomedans
is responsible for the sub-division of land. On the death of a Hindu or a
Mahomedan his heirs are entitled without let or hindrance to equal shares
in the property of the deceased. Now a consolidated holding subject to the
operation of such a law of inheritance will certainly not endure for long.
It will be the task of Sisyphus over again if, after consolidation, the law
of inheritance were to remain unaltered.

7. R. B.C. . p. 35.

8. The Consolidation of Agicultural Holdings in the United Provinces, 1918, pp. 45-46.
The author is grateful to Prof. Jevons for a copy.

462

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

But how is the existing law of inheritance to be changed ? If it is not to
be the law of equal sub-division shall we have the law of primogeniture. 9
The Baroda Committee thanks that, —

“It is not necessary that it should be introduced. All that it wanted
is, that there should not be sub-divisions of land beyond a certain
limit, which may be fixed for the sake of good agriculture. There is no
objection to a holding being sub-divided, so long as by so doing each
of the parts does not become less than the limit fixed for the sub-
division of land. But when a holding reaches a stage to render further
sub-division uneconomic, the other members of the family may not be
allowed to force further sub-division of the holding. Instead of being
sub-divided, it may be either cultivated in common or be given to one
of the members of the family as a whole, and that member made to
pay amounts equal to the value of their shares as compensation to the
other members .” 10

The principle of not dividing immovable property among the heirs, when
division would result in inconveniently small shares, but of giving to the
highest bidder among the sharers or in case none of them is willing to
have it, to outside bidders, and dividing the money realized in proportion
to the recognized shares, has been accepted in the Indian Partition Act,
No. 4 of 1893, section 2 of which runs thus :

“Whenever in any suit for partition, in which, if instituted prior to
the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition might have been
made, it appears to the Court that, by reason of the nature of the
property to which the suit relates, or of the number of the shareholders
therein or of any other special circumstance, a division of the property
cannot reasonably or conveniently be made and that a sale of the
property and distribution of proceeds would be more beneficial for
all the share-holders, the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the request
of any such share-holder interested individually or collectively to the
extent of one moiety or upwards direct a sale of the property and a
distribution of the proceeds.”

Granting the advisability of thus changing the law of inheritance it only
requires to amend the Civil Procedure Code so as to make it obligatory
on the Courts to refuse partition whenever it would reduce a field beyond
the economic limit fixed in advance.

9. Besides these two systems of inheritance there is a third which allows a father liberty to do
as he likes with a part of his estate provided he leaves sufficient for his heir to constitute what
is called pars legitima. Under it the Germans have enacted a permissive law of Anerbenrecht
designed to obviate the effects of the law of inheritance in causing unnecessary sub-division of
land. In some aspects it anticipates the proposals of the Baroda Committee; in others those of
the Hon. Mr. Keatings. For a description of it see Prof. N. G. Pierson’s Principles of Economics,
Vol. II, pp. 286-90.

10. R.B.C., p. 26.

SM AL L HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

463

Another method of dealing with the problem is advocated by the Hon.

Mr. G. F. Keatinge, Director of Agriculture, Bombay Presidency. In the

Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to his draft bill he says :

“4 The object of this bill is to enable such landowners

as may wish to do so to check the further sub-division of their lands
and to enable them, when it is otherwise possible, to effect a permanent
consolidation of their holdings; and also to enable the executive
government to secure the same results in respect of unoccupied land.

The legislation proposed is purely enabling, and it will be operative
in the case of any holding only upon the expressed wish of any person
possessing an interest in that holding.

“5. The scheme embodied in this bill for securing these objects is
briefly as follows. In order to be constituted an economic holding a plot
of land must be entered as such in a register prescribed by rules. If
the land is occupied, it will rest with some person having an interest
in the land to make an application to the Collector to have the land

registered as an economic holding Unless the Collector

considers that there are sufficient grounds for rejecting the application,
he holds a careful enquiry in which he follows a procedure similar to
that prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If the proceedings
show that all persons interested agree, the land is registered. Land
vesting absolutely in Government may be registered without inquiry.

The holding must in any case be registered in one name only, and the
act of registration annuls all the interest of all other persons, except
the registered owner, in the holding. Thereafter the owner cannot
divide the plot but must so long as he owns it, keep it entire. He
may sell, mortgage or otherwise dispose of it as an entire unit, but
not dispose of part of it or do anything that might result in splitting
up the holding. On the death of the holder, if he has not disposed of
the land by will it will devolve upon a single heir. If the provisions of
the bill are contravened (for instance if the holder mortgages a part
of his holding and the mortgagee obtains a decree for possession), the
Collector is empowered to send a certificate to the Court, and the
Court will set aside its decree or order. The Collector may also evict a
person in wrongful possession. When a plot has been once constituted
an economic holding, the registration cannot be cancelled except with
the consent of the Collector; the grounds on which cancellation will
be allowed, will be laid down by rule and it is proposed that it shall
be permitted chiefly in cases where economic considerations indicate
that it is expedient.”

Summing up this discussion of the two issues of consolidation, it must be
said that the problem has not been viewed as a whole by all its advocates.
The Baroda Committee alone endeavours to consolidate as well as to preserve

464

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the consolidated holding. Prof. Jevons makes no provision to conserve the
results of consolidation. Mr. Keatinge does not deal with consolidation at
all. He is concerned only with the prevention of further fragmentation.
But fragmentation, there will be in a holding even after it is entered as
an economic holding. By his measure he will only succeed in preserving
the holdings as they will be found at the time of registration, i.e., he will
not allow them to be reduced in size. But they will be small and scattered
all the same. Mr. Keatinge, notwithstanding his legislation, leaves the
situation more or less as it exists. Real consolidation is, however, aimed at
by Prof. Jevons and the Baroda Committee. The principles they advocate
for the purpose are almost the same ; and so are their procedures for
carrying it out.

As for the preservation of consolidated holdings Mr. Keatinge as well
as the Baroda Committee establish the one-man rule of succession. The
Baroda Committee would adopt this rule only when division of land would
result in uneconomic holdings and then too would compel the successor
to buy off the claims of the other dispossessed heirs. Mr. Keatinge would
let the dispossessed heirs off without compensation.

A more serious criticism against these projects of consolidation consists
in the fact they have failed to recognize that a consolidated holding must
be an enlarged holding as well. If it is said that Indian agriculture suffers
from small and scattered holdings we must not only consolidate, but also
enlarge them. It must be borne in mind that consolidation may obviate
the evils of scattered holdings, but it will not obviate the evils of small
holdings unless the consolidated holding is an economic, i.e. an enlarged
holding. The Committee as well as Mr. Keatinge have entirely lost sight
of this aspect of the question. Prof. Jevons, alone of the advocates, keeps
it constantly before his mind that consolidation must bring about in its
train the enlargement of holdings.

IV

ENLARGEMENT

Granted that enlargement of holdings is as important as their
consolidation we will now turn to the discussion of regulating their
size. It is desired by all interested in our agriculture that our holdings
should be economic holdings. We would have been more thankful to the
inventors of this new, precise and scientific terminology had they given
us a precise and scientific definition of an economic holding. On the
other hand, it is believed that a large holding is somehow an economic
holding. It may be said that even Prof. Jevons has fallen a victim to
this notion. For when discussing what the size of a holding should
be he dogmatically states that in the consolidated village the mode

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

465

should be between 29 and 30 acres. 11 But why should the mode be at this
point and not at 100 or say 200 ? We might imagine Prof. Jevons to reply
that his model point is placed at that particular acreage because it would
produce enough for a farmer to sustain a higher standard of living. Raising
the general standard of living in India is the one string on which Prof. Jevons
harps even to weariness throughout his pamphlet. 12 The error underlying
this doctrine we shall consider later on. It is enough to say that he does
not give any sound economic reason for his model farm.

The case with the Baroda Committee is much worse, Prof. Jevons at least
sticks to one definition of an ideal economic holding; but the Report of the
Baroda Committee suffers from a plurality of definitions. While contenting
on the size of an average holding in the state as is summarized in the above
table, it should be noted that the Committee, though it desired consolidation,
was perfectly satisfied with the existing size of the holding as is clear, from
the following:

“If the average holding of a Khatedar was a .compact field of those figures,
the situation would be an ideal one and would not leave much to be desired.” 13

But absent-minded as it were, the Committee, without any searching
analysis of the question it was appointed to investigate and report upon,
lays down that:

“An ideal economic holding would consist of 30 to 50 bighas of fair land in
one block with at least one good irrigation well and a house situated in the
holding.” 14

If the size of existing holdings is an ideal size why should they be
enlarged ? To this, the Committee gives no answer. But this is not all. The
Committee does not even adhere to the quantitative limit it has already set
down to its ideal economic holding. When it comes to discuss the project
of re-arrangement of the scattered fields of the village on the principle of
“Economic unit” it presents a third ideal of an economic holding. To realize
this ideal it says :

“Each of these new plots must be of such a size, as having regard to the
local conditions of soil, tillage, etc., to form an Economic field, i.e., a parcel of
land necessary to keep fully engaged and support one family.” 15

Thus with perfect equanimiy (1) the Baroda Committee holds, not too
fast, to three notions of an ideal economic holding. No wonder then that
the Report of the Committee is a model of confused reasoning though it is
a valuable repository of facts bearing on the subject.

11. Opt. Cit. chart on p. 38.

12. Opt. Cit. Introduction.

13. Ibid., p. 4.

14. R.B.C., p. 31.

15. Ibid., p. 53.

466

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

According to the Hon. Mr. Keatinge an economic holding is : —

“a holding which allows a man chance of producing sufficient to support
himself and his family in reasonable comfort, after paying his necessary
expenses .” 16

His definition of an economic holding will be accepted, we may expect,
by the Baroda Committee; for, it does not differ from its own, given above
as third in order. Assuming they agree, we may now proceed to see how
far tenable this definition is.

It is plain that these definitions including that of Professor Jevons
view an economic holding from the stand-point of consumption rather
than of production. In this lies their error; for consumption is not the
correct standard by which to judge the economic character of a holding.
It would be perverse accounting to condemn a farm as not paying because
its total output does not support the family of the farmer though as a
pro-rata return for each of his investments it is the highest. The family
of a farmer can only be looked upon in the light of so much labour corps
at his disposal. It may well be that some portion of this labour corps is
superfluous, though it has to be supported merely in obedience to social
custom as is the case in India. But if our social custom compels a farmer
to support some of his family members even when he cannot effectively
make any use of them on his farm we must be careful not to find fault
with the produce of the farm because it does not suffice to provide for the
workers as well as the dependants that may happen to compose the family.
The adoption of such an accounting system will declare many enterprises
as failures when they will be the most successful. There can be no true
economic relation between the family of the entrepreneur and the total
out-turn of his farm or industry. True economic relation can subsist only
between the total out-turn and the investments. If the total out-turn pays
for all the investments no producer in his senses will ever contemplate
closing his industry because the total out-turn does not support his family.
This is evident; for though production is for the purpose of consumption it
is for the consumption only of those who help to produce. It follows, then,
that if the relation between out-turn and investments is a true economic
relation, we can only speak of a farm as economic, i.e., paying in the
sense of production and not in the sense of consumption. Any definition,
therefore, that leans on consumption mistakes the nature of an economic
holding which is essentially an enterprise in production.

Before going further, we must clear the ground by a few preliminary
remarks to facilitate the understanding of an economic holding from the
standpoint of production.

16. Rural Economy in the Bombay Deccan, p. 51.

SM AL L HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

467

It must be premised at the outset that in a competitive society the daily
transactions of its members, as consumers or producers, are controlled by
a price regime. It is production, then, in a price regime that we have to
analyse here for our purpose. In the main the modern process of production
is captained by the entrepreneur, is guided and supervised by him and is
worked out through him. All employers of labour or hirers of instrumental
goods are entrepreneurs. His computations run, as they must, in a
pecuniary society, in terms of price-outlay as over against price-product,
no matter whether the prospective product is offered for sale or not. The
entrepreneur, in producing for gain, apportions his outlays in varieties of
investments. These investments, the same as factors of production or costs
to the entrepreneur, have by tradition been confined to wages (labour)
profits, rent (land) and interest (capital). Industrial facts do not support this
classification. There are many other factors, it is contended, which as they
share in the distributive process must have functioned in the productive
process, in some way immediate or remote. But it is immaterial how
many factors there are and whether they differ in kind or degree. What is
important for the purpose of production is the process of combining them.

This combination of necessary factors of production is governed by a law
called the law of proportion. It lays down that disadvantage is bound to
attend upon a wrong proportion among the various factors of production
employed in a concern. Enlarged, the principle means that as a certain
volume of one factor has the capacity to work only with a certain volume
of another to give maximum efficiency to both, an excess or defect in
the volume of one in comparison with those of the others will tell on
the total output by curtailing the efficiency of all. Having regard then to
this interdependence of factors, an economically efficient combination of
them compels the producer if he were to vary the one to vary the rest
correspondingly. Neither can it be otherwise. For, the chief object of an
efficient production consists in making every factor in the concern contribute
its highest; and it can do that only when it can co-operate with its fellow
of the required capacity. Thus, there is an ideal of proportions that ought
to subsist among the various factors combined, though the ideal will vary
with the changes in the proportions . 17

These proportions it must be acknowledged are affected by the principle
of substitution chiefly brought into play owing to variations in the prices
of the factors. But this principle of substitution is too limited in its
application to invalidate the law of proportion which is the law governing all

17. This description of the process of production is pieced together from the remarks of
Prof. H. J. Davenport in his masterly treatise “The Economics of Enterprize” New York.
Macmilian, 1913, In this connection see also the able paper by Prof. Henry C. Taylor on
“Two Dimensions of Productivity” read before the 29th Annual Meeting of the American
Economic Association held in December 1916 and the remarks on the same by Prof. A.
A. Young. Both these will be found in the American Economic Review for March 1917.

468

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

economic production and which no producer can hope to ignore with
impunity. 18

Bringing to bear the above remarks regarding production on the definition
of an economic holding, we can postulate that if agriculture is to be treated
as an economic enterprise, then, by itself, there could be no such thing as
a large or a small holding. To a farmer a holding is too small or too large
for the other factors of production at his disposal necessary for carrying on
the cultivation of his holding as an economic enterprise. Mere size of land
is empty of all economic connotation. Consequently, it cannot possibly be the
language of economic science to say that a large holding is economic while
a small holding is uneconomic. It is the right or wrong proportion of other
factors of production to a unit of land that renders the latter economic or
uneconomic. Thus a small farm may be economic as well as a large farm ;
for, economic or uneconomic does not depend upon the size of land but upon
the due proportion among all the factors including land.

An economic holding, therefore, if it is not to be a hollow concept, consists
in a combination of land, capital and labour, etc., in a proportion such that
the pro rata contribution of each in conjunction with the rest is the highest.
In other words to create an economic holding it will not do for a farmer solely
to manipulate his piece of land. He must also have the other instruments
of production required for the efficient cultivation of his holding and must
maintain a due proportion of all the factors for, without it, there can be no
efficient production. If his equipment shrinks, his holding must also shrink.
If his equipment augments, his holding must also augment. The point is
that his equipment and his holding must not be out of proportion to each
other. They must be in proportion and must vary, if need be, in proportion.

The line of argument followed above is not without support from actual
practice. It is happy from an economist’s point of view, to find it recognized
and adopted in India itself by the fathers of the Survey and Settlement
System in the Bombay Presidency. The famous Joint Report (1840) contains
an illuminating discussion of the problem. The question before the officers
deputed to introduce the Survey System in the Deccan was how to levy
the assessment. Was it to be a field assessment or an assessment to
be placed on the whole lands of the village or on the entire holdings of
individuals or co-parceners, whether proprietors or occupants. That after

18. Some economists who hold that it is the law of Diminishing Returns that governs
agricultural production will demur to the universal applicability that is claimed for the
Law of Proportion. Briefly stated the Law of Dininishing Returns asserts that additional
‘doses’ of capital and labour administered to a given piece of land will be responded to
by a less and less yield. This means that if only the non-land expense of production is
doubled there results less than a doubled product. But if this is the fact that is intended
to be generalised by the Law of Diminishing Returns then there is nothing in it that is
peculiar to agricultural production. If the expense to the land be doubled but the land not
doubled it is certain that the extra return will fall short of the increased expense. This
is simply another way of saying that if the returns are to grow all the factors must be
increased in proportion. But so stated is not the Law of Diminishing Returns a confused
version of the Law of Proportion?

SM AL T i HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

469

much deliberation the system of field assessment was finally adopted
is known to many. But as the reasons that led to its adoption are
known only to a few the following explanatory parts from the Joint
report will be found to be both interesting and instructive:

“Para 6. That one manifest advantage of breaking up the
assessment of a village into portions so minute [as indicated by
a survey number] is the facility it affords to the cultivators of
contracting or enlarging his farm from year to year, according
to the fluctuating amount of agricultural capital at their
disposal which is of incalculable importance to farmers possessed
of so limited resources as those of the cultivating classes throughout
India.

“Para 7. The loss of a few bullocks by disease or other causes
may quite incapacitate a ryot from cultivating profitably the extent
of land he had previously in village and, without the privilege of
contracting his farm, and consequent liabilities on occassion of such
loss, his ruin would be very shortly consummated.” 19

Judging in the light of this conclusion the proposal to regulate the
size of holdings appears ill-considered and futile. For as Prof. Richard
T. Ely observes 20 :

“Obviously no simple answer can be given to the question [as to
what should be the size of a farm] . The value of land or the rent it will

bring is perhaps the most important factor In addition

to the factor of rent the amount of capital that he can command,
the kind of fanning in which he is most skilled, the character of the
labour he can secure, the proximity of markets, and the adequacy
of transportation facilities, all must be taken into account by the
farmer in determining how large a farm he will attempt to manage
and how intensively he will farm it.

“ This question is primarily one of private profit which the individual
must decide for himself, but the legislator and the scientific student
can be of some assistance in helping to develope that most difficult
branch of commercial science — farm accounting — and in keeping the
farmer alive to those charges in prices, wages, and transportation
charges to which the farm organization must adjust itself.”

To those who have the temerity to fix the size of a holding Prof. Ely’s
well-considered opinion will bring home that in spite of good intentions
their vicarious mission will end in disaster; for none but the cultivator
can decide what should be the size of his holding. They would do well to
remember that the size of his holdings will vary in time. Consequent to

19. Survey Settlement Manual Bombay Presidency, 1882. p. 3.

20. Outlines of Economics, pp. 531-32 (Italics ours).

470

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the changes in his equipment with which he has to adjust the size
of his farm, at one point in time he will decide in favour of a small,
as at another he will decide in favour of a large holding. He would
therefore be a poor economist who would legally fix the size of the
holding which in the interest of economic production must be left to
vary when variation is demanded. By fixing the size of a holding he
can only make it a large holding but not an economic holding. For an
economic holding is not a matter of the size of land alone but is a
matter of the adjustment of a piece of land to the necessary equipment
for its efficient cultivation.

V

CRITIQUE OF THE REMEDIES

The proposal to enlarge the existing holdings which is brought
forward as a cure to the ills of our agriculture can be entertained only
if it is shown that farms have diminshed in size while the agricultural
stock has increased in amount. Facts regarding the size of farms have
already been recorded. It only remains to see if the agricultural stock
has increased- Mr. K. L. Datta in his exhaustive survey says 21 :

“178. Most of the Indian witnesses, whom we examined, appeared
to be under the belief that there has been a decrease in the supply of
agricultural products, owing to the inefficient tillage of land. It was said
that land is not now cultivated as carefully and efficiently as before,
owing to the scarcity and dearness of plough, cattle and labour. In order
to effect, a saving in the cost of cultivation, cultivators do not also plough
their lands as often as they did before, and manuring and weeding, as
also the amount of irrigating where wells are used for the purpose, have
all been reduced.”

“179. As regards the scarcity of plough cattle (the) figures bear

testimony to the deplorable effects of famine, the inevitable result of which
has always been to reduce the number of cattle, though the deficiency is
generally made good in a few years if otherwise favourable. The number
of plough cattle in the latest year (1908-09) included in the statement
was lower than in the commencement (1893-94), in some of the circles
namely Assam, Bundelkhund. Agra Provinces — North and West, Gujarat,
Deccan, Berar, Madras-North and Madras-West. Although great reliance
cannot be placed on these statistics, they can be accepted as showing
that in some areas at any rate there has been a dearth of plough cattle.”

Regarding the existence of capital Mr. Elliot James says :

“The ryots have a keen eye to the results of a good system of farming
as exhibited on model farms, but they cannot derive much good from

21. Report on the Enquiry into the Rise of Prices in India, 1914, Vol. 1, pp. 66-67, (Italics ours).

SM AL L HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

471

the knowledge though they may take it in and thoroughly understand that
superior tillage and proper manuring mean a greater out turn in crops.
Their great want is capital .” 22

The farmer knows, says the same author, that his agricultural
equipment is inefficient and antiquated but he cannot substitute better
ones in its place for :

“A superior class of cattle and superior farm implements mean to him
so much outlay of what he has not — Money.”

Similar facts for the Baroda State have been collected in another
connection by Mr. M. B. Nanavali, Director of Commerce and Industry.
But unfortunately he did not bring his knowledge of such facts to bear
upon the conclusions of the Committee for the consolidation of holdings
in the State of which he was also a member, apparently thinking that
the size of a holding bore no relation to the instruments of production.
He bemoans that:

“The farmers are not fully equipped with draught-cattle. They have
today (1913) 8,34,901 bullocks, etc., for use on farms, that is one pair for
36 bighas of land. On an average a pair of good bullocks can cultivate 25
bighas of land. But the present breed has much deteriorated and one pair
is supposed to cultivate 20 bighas at the most, while the present actual
averages comes to about 36 bighas. Under the circumstances it is not
likely that ploughing can be deep. It must be like scratching the surface.
The small cultivators do not possess any draught-cattle or at the most a
single one and cultivate land in co-operation with their friends similarly
situated. As for farm implements there are 1,54,364 ploughs in the State,
i.e., one for two Khatedars. It must be understood here that the number
of cultivators and tenants is much more than three lakhs. Every one of
them needs full equipment. Therefore actually the average must be much
smaller than shown above.” 23

In fact the equipment for agricultural production in the State has
considerably deteriorated since 1898 as shown by the table below :

Year

Plough

Carts

Plough Cattle

Other Domestics

1898

1,75,989

4,15,089

5,70,517

1910

1,51,664

68,946

3,34,801

5,09,416

Given, this state of affairs can we not say with more propriety that not
only the existing equipment is inadequate for the enlarged holdings but

22 Indian Industries, p. 6.

23. Report on Agricultural Indebtedness in the Baroda State, 1913, para. 35.

472

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

that the existing holdings, small as they are, are too big for the available
instruments of production other than land ? Facts such as these interpreted
in the light of our theory force upon us the conclusion that the existing
holdings are uneconomic, not, however, in the sense that they are too small
but that they are too large. Shall we therefore argue that the existing
holdings should be further reduced in size with a view to render them
economic in the sense in which we have used the term ? Unwary readers
might suppose that this is the only logical and inevitable conclusion — a
conclusion that is in strange contrast with the main trend of opinion
in this country. Contrary, no doubt, the conclusion is ; but it is by no
means inevitable. For, from our premises we can with perfect logic and
even with more cogency argue for increase in agricultural stock and
implements which in turn will necessitate enlarged holdings which will
be economic holdings as well.

Consequently the remedy for the ills of agriculture in India does not
lie primarily in the matter of enlarging holdings but in the matter of
increasing capital and capital goods. That capital arises from saving
and that saving is possible where there is surplus is a commonplace of
political economy.

Does our agriculture — the main stay of our population — give us any
surplus ? We agree with the answer which is unanimously in the negative.
We also approve of the remedies that are advocated for turning the deficit
economy into a surplus economy, namely by enlarging and consolidating
the holdings. What we demur to is the method of realizing this object.
For we most strongly hold that the evil of small holdings in India is not
fundamental but is derived from the parent evil of the mal-adjustment in
her social economy. Consequently if we wish to effect a permanent cure
we must go to the parent malady.

But before doing that we will show how we suffer by a bad social
economy. It has become a tried statement that India is largely an
agicultural country. But what is scarcely known is that notwithstanding
the vastness of land under tillage, so little land is cultivated in proportion
to her population.

Mulhall’s figures for the year 1895 clearly demonstrate the point.
Acres per inhabitant in 1895

Great

Britain

Ireland

France

Germany

Russia

Austria

Italy

Spain

and

Portugal

U.S.A.

India

0.91

3.30

2.30

1.70

5.60

2.05

1.75

2.90

8.90

1.0

SM AL T i HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

473

That since 1895 the situation, however, has gone from bad to worse figures
eloquently bear out:

1881

1891

1901

1911

Bengal

1.5

0.8

1.12

Bombay

1.7

1.6

1.41

1.3

Madras

1.3

0.3

.68

.79

Assam

0.5

.78

.85

Punjab

1.2

1.3

1.05

1.11

Oudh

.81

0.7 1

.73

.75

N. W. P.

0.8 J

Burmah

1.5

1.08

1.09

Central P.

1.67

2.4

1.8

1.79

B. India

1.04

1.0

0.86

0.88

Now, what does this extraordinary phenomenon mean ? A large agricultural

population with the lowest proportion of land in actual cultivation means that
a large part of the agricultural population is superfluous and idle. How much
idle labour there is on Indian farms it is not possible to know accurately.
Sir James Caird who was the first to notice the existence of this idle labour
estimated in 1884 that,

“A square mile of land in England cultivated highly gives employment to 50
persons, in the proportion 25 men, young and old, and 25 women and boys. If
four times that number, or 200, were allowed for each square mile of cultivated
land in India, it would take up only one-third of the population.” 24

Out of the total population of 254 millions in 1881 nearly two-thirds were
returned as agricultural. Allowing, as per estimate, one-third to be taken up,
we can safely say that a population of equal magnitude was lying idle instead
of performing any sort of productive labour. With the increasing ruralization
of India and a continually decreasing proportion of land under cultivation,
the volume of idle labour must have increased to an enormous extent.

The economic effects of this idle labour are two-fold. Firstly, it adds to
the tremendous amount of pressure that our agricultural population exerts
on land. A quantitative statement will serve to bring home to our mind how
high the pressure is:

Mean density per square mile in 1911

Oudh and
N. W. P

Bengal

Madras

Punjab

Bombay

Assam

Berar and
C. P.

Coorg

British

Burma

of Total Area

427

551

291

177

145

115

122

111

53

of Cultivated Area

829

1162

785

453

444

766

360

792

575

24. India, the Land and the People, p. 225.

474

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Such high pressure of population on land is probably unknown in any
other part of the world. The effect of it is, of course, obvious.

Notwithstanding what others have said, this enormous pressure is the
chief cause of the subdivision of land. It is the failure to grasp the working
of this pressure on land that makes the law of inheritance such a great
grievance. To say that the law of inheritance causes sub-division of land is
to give a false view by inverting the real situation. The mere existence of
the law cannot be complained of as a grievance. The grievance consists in
the fact that it is invoked. But why is it invoked even when it is injurious ?
Simply because it is profitable. There is nothing strange in this. When
farming is the only occupation, to get a small piece of land is better than
to have none. Thus the grievance lies in the circumstances which put a
premium on these small pieces of land. The premium, is no doubt, due to
the large population depending solely on agriculture to eke out its living.
Naturally a population that has little else to prefer to agriculture will try to
invoke every possible cause to get a piece of land however small. It is not
therefore the law of inheritance that is the evil, but it is the high pressure
on land which brings it into operation. People cultivate the small (piece not
because their standard of living is low as Prof. Jevons seems to think 25 but
because it is the only profitable thing for them to do at present. If they had
something more profitable to do they would never prefer the small piece. It
is therefore easy to understand how the universal prevalance of the small
farms or petit culture is due to this enormous pressure on land.

In spite of the vehement struggle that our agricultural population
maintains in trying to engage itself productively as cultivators of a farm
however small, it is true that judged by the standard of Sir James Caird
a large portion of it is bound to remain idle. Idle labour and idle capital
differ in a very important particular. Capital exists, but labour lives. That
is to say capital when idle does not earn, but does not also consume much
to keep itself. But labour, earning or not consumes in order to live. Idle

25. Opt. cit. Introduction. The Impression that Prof. Jevons leaves on his readers is that
agriculture suffers in India because of the low standard of living. That a higher standard of
life once established will necessitate a large holding because people with a high standard of life
will prefer to migrate rather than accept a small holding. As his argument that holdings and
standard of life are related is likely to mislead his less thoughtful readers, a word of comment
is necessary. A standard of living is merely a level of consumption fixed in habit. But what
determines the depth of a particular level of consumption? Undoubtedly the level of production.
We may grant the truth of the statement that a rise in the standard of living works as a
stimulus to higher production but it is foolish to expect mere wish to be father to the deed. It
is actual production alone that can support rise in the standard and not wish, generated though
it be either by “travel or education”. If Prof. Jevons means that an opportunity for increased
production, leading to a higher standard of life, will disfavour small holdings we are one with
him. But he can make himself more intelligible by dropping standard of living and only arguing
for increased production; that increased production leads to a rise in standard will be granted by
all; but the reverse cannot be maintained Prof. Jevons seems to do, for it may lead to production
or predation. To speak of raising the standard of life without speaking of increased production
is to give expression to a pious wish, if it does not lead to mischief.

SM AL T i HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

475

labour is, therefore, a calamity ; for if it cannot live by production as it
should, it will live by predation as it must. This idle labour has been the
canker of India gnawing at its vitals. Instead of contributing to our national
dividend it is eating up what little there is of it. Thus the depression of
our national dividend is another important effect of this idle labour. The
income of a society as of an individual proceeds (1) from the efforts made,
and (2) from possessions used. It may be safely asserted that the aggregate
income of any individual or society must be derived either from the proceeds
of the current labour or from productive possession already acquired. All
that society can have today it must acquire today or must take out of its
past product. Judging by this criterion a large portion of our society makes
very little current effort; nor does it have any very extensive possessions
from which to derive its sustenance. No doubt then that our economic
organization is conspicuous by want of capital. Capital is but crystallized
surplus ; and surplus depends upon the proceeds of effort. But where there
is no effort there is no earning, no surplus, and no capital.

We have thus shown how our bad social economy is responsible for the
ills of our agriculture. We have also proved how our entire dependence
on agriculture leads to small and scattered farms. How a large portion
of our population which our agriculture cannot productively employ is
obliged to remain idle has been made clear. We have also shown how the
existence of this idle labour makes ours a country without capital. This
being our analysis of the problem, it will be easy to see why the remedies
for consolidation and enlargement under the existing social economy are
bound to fail.

Those who look on small holdings as the fundamental evil naturally
advocate their enlargement. This, however, is a faulty political economy
and as Thomas Arnold once said “a faulty political economy is the fruitful
parent of crime”. Apart from the fact that merely to enlarge the holding
is not to make it economic, this project of artificial enlargement is fraught
with many social ills. The future in the shape of an army of landless and
dispossessed men that it is bound to give rise to is neither cheerful from
the individual, nor agreeable from the national, point of view. But even if
we enlarged the existing holdings and procured enough capital and capital
goods to make them economic, we will not only be not advocating the proper
remedy but will end in aggravating the evils by adding to our stock of idle
labour; for capitalistic agriculture will not need as many hands as are now
required by our present day methods of cultivation.

But if enlargement is not possible, can we not have consolidation? It
can be shown that under the existing social economy even consolidation
is not possible. The remedy for preventing sub-division and fragmentation

476

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of consolidated holdings cannot be expected to bring real relief. Instead it
will only serve to be a legal eyewash. This becomes easy of comprehension
if we realize at the start what the one man rule of succession means in
actual practice. For this we shall have to note the changes it will introduce
in the survey records. At present according to the Bombay Land Revenue
Code Chapter I, Section 3, clause (6).

“Survey Number” means a portion of land of which the area and other
particulars are separately entered, under an indicative number in the survey
records of the village, town or city in which it is situated, and includes a
recognized share of a survey number. Again by clause (7).

“Recognized share of a survey number” means a sub-division of a survey
number separately assessed and registered.

After the adoption of the one man rule of succession a survey number
will be made to cover a piece of land which will be of the size fixed for an
ideal economic holding. Secondly, it will be necessary to refuse separate
registration to any sub-division of such a survey number ; i.e., in order that
a piece of land should be registered with a separate and a distinct survey
number it must not be below the economic limit. Then too this survey
number covering a piece of land large enough to be styled economic will be
registered in the name of one person. This is precisely what will happen
if we put into practice the project of the Baroda Committee. Mr. Keatinge
instead of having one survey number covering a large and compact holding
will have in the name of one person many survey numbers covering a unit
of land composed of small and scattered fields. Abandoning Mr. Keatinge’s
scheme as serving no practical purpose the one man rule of succession
to a consolidated holding means in practice refusal to recognize legally a
piece of land if it were below a certain size. Now this refusal to recognize
smaller pieces of land, it is claimed, will prevent the sub-division of a
consolidated holding. Sub-division of land may be due to many causes the
operation of which is rendered economic or uneconomic by the nature of the
occasion which evokes it. Not to allow sub-division on any ground, as does
Mr. Keatinge, is to cause a serious depreciation of the value of land. But if
sub-division is needed as when the stock has depleted, not to grant it is to
create an uneconomic situation — a result just opposite of what is intended
to be achieved, apart from this to prevent sub-division legally is not to
prevent it actually, if necessitated by the weight of economic circumstances.
Granting the pressure of population on land and the scanty agricultural
equipment — evils to which the authors of consolidation and enlargement
have paid no attention — we must look forward to the sub-division of
holdings. If we legislate in the face of this inevitable tendency and refuse
to record on our survey roll holdings below a certain limit required for a
separate survey number we will not only fail to cure what we must know

SM AL T i HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

477

we cannot, atleast by this means, but will help to create a register that will
be false to the true situation.

This being our criticism of the means for preventing sub-division and
fragmentation it will not take us long to state our view as regards the
project of consolidation. Consolidation and its conservation are so intimately
connected that the one cannot be thought of without the other. Now if we
cannot conserve a consolidated holding, is it worth our while to consolidate,
however feasible the project may be ? This work of Sysiphus will not fail
to fall to our lot unless we make effective changes in our social economy.

As the evils of this surplus and idle labour which will be added on to
by the consolidation and enlargement of holdings are likely to outweigh
their advantages’, the proposals do not find much favour at the hands of
Prof. Gilbert Slater . 26

As against Prof. Slater we hold that the evils are avoidable and it is because
we are anxious to avoid them that we wish to advocate different remedies
for bringing about the enlargement of holdings. Consequently, we maintain
that our efforts should be primarily directed towards this idle labour . 27

If we succeed in sponging off this labour in non-agricultural channels of
production we will at one stroke lessen the pressure and destroy the premium
that at present weighs heavily on land in India. Besides, this labour when
productively employed will cease to live by predation as it does to-day, and
will not only earn its keep but will give us surplus; and more surplus is more
capital. In short, strange though it may seem, industrialization of India is
the soundest remedy for the agricultural problems of India. The cumulative
effects of industralization, namely, a lessening pressure and an increasing
amount of capital and capital goods will forcibly create the economic necessity
of enlarging the holding. Not only this, but industralization by destroying
the premium on land will give rise to few occasions for its sub-division and
fragmentation. Industrialization is a natural and powerful remedy and is to
be preferred to such ill-conceived projects as we have considered above. By
legislation we will get a sham economic holding at the cost of many social
ills. But by industrialization a large economic holding will force itself upon
us as a pure gain.

26. “The village in the Melting Pot” Journal of the Indian Economic Society. Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 10.

27. Prof. Jevons does speak of removing the surplus agricultural population to towns. The
author is happy to note that Prof. Jevons had recognised that there is the evil of surplus
population. What he has failed to recognize is that this evil is the faithful parent of all other
evils that affect our agriculture. When it is recalled that industrialization of India is the
one theme against which Prof. Jevons never fails to argue with all the aid of his knowledge
and influence, his remedy of removing the surplus population to towns sounds starnge; for
migration to towns is simply euphemism for the industrialization of India. On the other
hand Prof. Jevons has forgotten that there are few towns in India. If we believe, as does
Prof. Jevons, that there is the evil of surplus population the only logical and inevitable
conclusion, however unplatable it be, is the creations of more towns i.e,, industrialization.

478

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Our remedy for the enlargement as for the consolidation of holdings as
well as the preservation of consolidated holdings reduces itself to this: We
prefer to cure agriculture by the reflex effects of industrialization. Lest this
might be deemed visionary we proceed to give evidence in support of our
view. How agriculture improves by the reflex effects of industrialization
has been studied in the United States in the year 1883. We shall quote
in extenso the summary given by the London Times:

“The statistician of the Agricultural Department of the United States has
shown in a recent report that the value of farm lands decreases in exact
proportion as the ratio of agriculture to other industries increases. That is,
where all the labour is devoted to agriculture, the land is worth less than
where only half of the people are farm labourers ; and where only a quarter
of them are so engaged the farms and their product are still more valuable. It
is, in fact, proved by statistics that diversified industries are of the greatest
value to a Stale, and that the presence of a manufactory near a farm increases
the value of the farm and its crops. It is further established that, dividing
the United States into four sections or classes, with reference to the ratio of
agricultural workers to the whole population, and putting those States having
less than 30 per cent of agriculture and of agricultural labourers in the first
class, all having over 30 and less than 50 in the second, those between 50
and 70 in the third, and those having 70 or more in the fourth, the value
of farms is in inverse ratio to the agricultural population, and that where
as in the purely agricultural section, the fourth class, the value of farms
per acre is only $ 5.28, in the next class it is $ 13.03, in the third $ 22.21,
and in manufacturing districts $ 40.91. This shows an enormous advantage
for a mixed district. Yet not only is the land more valuable the production
per acre is greater, and the wages paid to farm hands larger. Manufactures
and varied industries thus not only benefit the manufacturers, but are of
equal benefit and advantage to the farmers as well.”

This will show that ours is a proven remedy. It can be laid
down without fear of challenge that industrialization will foster the
enlargement of holdings and that it will be the most effective barrier
against sub-division and fragmentation. Agreeing in this, it may be
observed that industrialization will not be a sufficient remedy for
consolidation. That it will require direct remedies may be true. But
it is also true that industrialization, though it may not bring about
consolidation, will facilitate consolidation. It is an incontrovertible
truth that so long as there is the premium on land consolidation will
not be easy, no matter on how equitable principles it is proposed to
be carried out. Is it a small service if industrialization lessens the
premium as it inevitably must ? Certainly not. Consideration of another
aspect of consolidation as well points to the same conclusion : That

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

479

industrialization must precede consolidation. It should never be forgotten
that unless we have constructed an effective barrier against the future sub-
division and fragmentation of a consolidated holding it is idle to lay out plans
for consolidation. Such a barrier can only be found in industrialization ; for it
alone can reduce the extreme pressure which, as we have shown, causes sub-
division of land. Thus, if small and scattered holdings are the ills from which
our agriculture is suffering to cure it of them is undeniably to industrialize.

But just where does India stand as an industrial country ? :

England and
Wales

Germany

U. S

.A.

France

India

Rural

Urban

Rural Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural Urban

1790

87.5

1840

77.5

75.6

24.4

1851

49.92

50.08

1871

38.20

61.80

36

47.6

1881

32.1

67.9

41

44.3

29.5

1891

27.95

72.05

47

39.2

36 1

64.4

1901

23.00

77.00

54

35.7

40.5

67.5

1911

19.9

78.1

33.3

46.3

57.9

42.1

71.5

(The figures for the various countries do not correspond with the years. The range of variation
is 3 years),

Sir Robert Giffen after a survey of the economic tendencies of various
countries concludes that;

“The wants of men increasing with their resources the proportion of people
engaged in agiculture and mining and analogous pursuits, in every country is
destined to decline, and that of people engaged in miscellaneous industry — in
other words in manufactures using the latter phrase in a wide sense to increase .” 28

Figures for India, however, run counter to this dictum illustrating a universal
tendency observed by an expert. While other countries like the U.S.A. starting
as agricultural are progressively becoming industrial, India has been gradually
undergoing the woeful process of de-urbanization and swelling the volume
of her rural population beyond all needs. The earlier we stem this ominous
tide, the better. For notwithstanding what interested persons might say 29 no
truer and more wholesome words of caution were ever uttered regarding our
national economy than those by Sir Henry Cotton when he said “There is
danger of too much agriculture in India.”

• •

28. “Essays in Finance” 2nd Series, p. 240.

29. Prof. Jevons in his paper on the “Capitalistic Development of Agriculture” read
before the Indian Industrial Conference, held at Bombay in December 1915 argues
against industrialisation. It can however be maintained against Prof. Jevons that it
is industrialisation only that can make capitalistic agriculture possible. As a needful
corrective to his paper cf. Sir Robert Giffen’s Essay IV in his Essays in Finance, 1st
Series.

12

MR. RUSSELL AND
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF
SOCIETY

Review on

the “ Principles of Social Reconstruction

by

the Hon’ble Mr. Bertrand Russell

99

Published

Journal of the Indian Economic Society
Vol. I, 1918

MR. RUSSELL AND
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

The “Principles of Social Reconstruction ” 1 by the Honourable Mr. Bertrand
Russell is a war book. Bellicose literature, on the whole, is either propagandist
or preventive. Mr. Russell’s book, though it falls under the latter, must be
distinguished from the rest of the same class. Of the preventive books some
argue against the unnatural geographical barriers within which have been
impounded some unwilling nations by their masterful conquerors : others like
Mr. Angell’s Great Illusion, attempt to show that in the calculus of war loss
prevails over gain even to the victor. Mr. Russell’s however, is a diagnosis,
altogether different. Wars, he believes, cannot be banished by rationalistic
appeals such as above, “It is not by reason alone” he says “that wars can
be prevented but by a positive life of impulses and passions antagonistic to
those that lead to war. It is the life of impulse that needs to be changed,
not only the life of conscious thought ”. 2 As his diagnosis is different so is
his social philosophy. To him, “the chief thing to be learned through the
war has been a certain view of the springs of human action what they are,
and what we may legitimately hope that they will become. This view, if
it is true, seems to afford a basis for political philosophy more capable of
standing erect in a time of crisis than the philosophy of traditional liberalism
has shown itself to be .” 3

In consonance with this attitude he adopts the standpoint of the
behaviouristic psychology . 4 A most important contribution of this new
development in the Science of Psychology consists in a novel view of the
springs of human action. It has overthrown the doctrine that external

1. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. 1917, 6/ — net.

2. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 13.

3. Ibid:, p. 9.

4. Readers of Mr. Russell will do well to aquaint themselves with Prof. E. L. Thorndike’s
“Educational Psychology”, Vol. I, “On the Original Nature of Man”.

484

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

circumstances are responsible for man’s activity If it were so, contends the
behaviourist, it would presuppose a quiescent being which is a biological
untruth. Man, it propounds, has the springs of action within him for he
is born with certain tendencies to act. External circumstances do not
induce activity. They only re-direct it. These tendencies to act, further
says the behaviourist, in their working, become modified by the effect of
the Social milieu in which they function. The modifications which these
original tendencies undergo are of the highest importance, They constitute
Education in the broadest sense of the word. All modifications, however,
are not equally valuable and it is the business of the reformer to eliminate
the circumstances and institutions that modify these tendencies for the
socially worse and preserve and introduce those that will modify them
for the socially better. Whatever that may be, it is of immense social
value that these tendencies are capable of indefinite modifications. This
is possible only because as Mr. Russell says “ Man’s impulses are not
fixed from the beginning by his native dispositions. Within certain limits,
they are profoundly modified by his circumstances and his way of life.
The nature of these modifications ought to be studied, and the results
of his study ought to be taken account of in judging the good or harm
that is done by political and social institutions .” 5

In six illuminating chapters Mr. Russell studies the modifications
that human nature has undergone under the institutions of State, War,
Property, Education, Marriage and Religion. It is impossible to give an
adequate idea of Mr. Russell’s social philosophy by summarizing the
contents of each one of these chapters. They are living contributions to
the literature of the several subjects they deal with. Full of suggestions,
they provoke thought and ought therefore to be read from the original.
This might be unconventional so far as reviewing is concerned but is
justified by the fact that this review is meant for an economic journal
for the purposes of which, we need only attend to the analysis of the
institution of Property and the modifications it is alleged by Mr. Russell
to produce in human nature.

Before, however, proceeding to the task, it may be worth while discussing
how the philosophy of war is related to the principles of growth as
expounded by Mr. Russell.

At the outset it must be said that, because his is an anti-war book, those
who read in him the philosophy of quieticism will have read him all wrong.
For, though Mr. Russell is anxious for the abolition of war, he explicitly
states that “in spite of all the destruction which is wrought by the impulses
that lead to war, there is more hope for a nation which has these impulses

5. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 19.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

485

than for a nation in which all impulse is dead. Impulse is the expression of
life and while it exists, there is hope of its turning towards life instead of
towards death ; but lack of impulse is death, and out of death no new life
will come .” 6 He further acknowledges that “a great many of the impulses
which now lead nations to go to war are themselves essential to any
vigorous or progressive life. Without imagination and love of adventure a
society becomes stagnant and begins to decay. Conflict, provided it is not
destructive and brutal, is necessary in order to stimulate men’s activities
and to secure the victory of what is living over what is dead and merely
traditional. The wish for the triumph of one’s cause, the sense of solidarity
with large bodies of men, are not things which a wise man will wish to
destroy. It is only the outcome in death and destruction and hatred that
is evil. The problem is to keep these impulses without making war the
outlet for them .” 7

The gist of it all is that activity is the condition of growth. Mr. Russell,
it must be emphasized, is against war but is not for quieticism ; for,
according to him, activity leads to growth and quieticism is but another
name for death. To express it in the language of Professor Dewey he is
only against “force as violence” but is all for “force as energy.” It must
be remembered by those who are opposed to force that without the use
of it all ideals will remain empty just as without some ideal or purpose
(conscious or otherwise) all activity will be no more than mere fruitless
fooling. Ends and means (= force in operation) are therefore concomitants
and the common adage that the end justifies the means contains a profound
truth which is perverted simply because it is misunderstood. For if the
end does not justify the means what else will? The difficulty is that we
do not sufficiently control the operations of the means once employed for
the achieving of some end. For a means when once employed liberates
many ends — a fact scarcely recognised — and not the one only we wish it to
produce. However, in our fanaticism for achievement we attach the article
“the” to the end we cherish and pay no heed to the ends simultaneously
liberated. Of course for the exigencies of an eminently practical life we
must set an absolute value on some one end. But in doing this we must
take precaution that the other ends involved are not sacrificed. Thus, the
problem is that if we are to use force, as we must, to achieve something,
we must see that while working for one end we do not destroy, in the
process, other ends equally worthy of maintenance. Applying this to the
present war, no justification. I think, is needed for the use of force. What
needs to the justified is the destructive violence. The justification must
satisfy the world that the ends given prominence to by one or other of

6. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 21.

7. Ibid., p. 93.

486

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the combatants could not be achieved otherwise than by violence, i.e., without
involving the sacrifice of other ends equally valuable for the stability of
the world. True enough that violence cannot always be avoided and non-
resistance can be adopted only when it is a better way of resistance. But
the responsibility for an intelligent control of force rests on us all. In short,
the point is that to achieve anything we must use force : only we must
use it constructively as energy and not destructively as violence.

The length of this discussion of the philosophy of war as related to
the principles of growth can be justified, if need be, by more extenuating
circumstances than one. The present European war has brought into
unmeasured and even thoughtless censure the philosophy of force and
has ushered to the forefront the gospel of quieticism and the doctrine
of non-resistance. The fact that Mr. Russell’s is an anti-war book, the
author of which was sentenced to six months’ goal, not for writing the
book under review but for being a pacifist crank, will be construed to lend
its support to the lurking desire in many a mind for a passive life as a
natural reaction from the turmoil of war. It was therefore necessary to
know how far Mr. Russell shared in this condemnation of force. A second
justifying circumstance is furnished by the bias in the minds of the Indian
readers of Mr. Russell. It will be realized that what is advocated to take
the place of the philosophy of force is essentially an Eastern philosophy or
to be specific, Indian philosophy. It was therefore much more important to
present Indian readers of Mr. Russell with a correct interpretation of his
attitude. Their innate craving for a pacific life and their philosophic bias
for the doctrine of non-resistance, I am afraid, might lead them to read
in Mr. Russell a justification of their view of life, if not guarded against.

Is the Indian view of life a practicable view ? Nietzsche in his cynical
mood said of Christianity that there was only one Christian and he was
crucified-implying the impracticability of the Christian view of life. This
remark, if it is true of the Christian, must be true, in a larger degree,
of the Eastern view of life as well: for, though regionally Western yet
Christianity in its origin as well in its content is essentially Eastern.
Equally condemnatory, though not so severely, as shown above, is the
attitude of Mr. Russell towards this philosophy of quieticism. One cannot
however, fail to notice with dismay the persistence of this attitude towards
life on the part of Indians notwithstanding its theoretical impossibility and
the many vissicitudes through which the country has passed. Nay, in the
present days of Indian Nationalism — which sadly enough is tantamount
to justifying everything Indian — the attitude is likely to be upheld and
continued. Note, that of the stock contrasts between the East and the West,
thrown in relief by the war, the East is ever eager to give prominence in
terms of self-glorification to one — that of its being free from the extreme

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

487

materialism of the West leading to war and devastation. There is
however no justification for setting the West in such a cruel contrast.
The East is too prone to forget that materialist we all are ; even the
East in spite of itself. Regarding the war, perhaps, the West may
be blamed. But it can retort and say, “not to act is to be dead. Life
consists in activity: It is better to act even violently as in war than
not at all for only when we act that we may hope to act well.” Thus,
surprising as it may be, the pacifist Mr. Russell thinks even war as
an activity leading to the growth of the individual and condemns it
only because it results in death and destruction. He would welcome
milder forms of war for according to him, “Every man needs some kind
of contest, some sense of resistance overcome, in order to feel that he
is exercising his faculties”, 8 in other words to feel that he is growing.

Of the many reasons urged in support the Indian view of life one
is that it is chiefly owing to its influence that India alone of all the
oldest countries has survived to this day. This is a statement that
is often heard and even from persons whose opinions cannot be too
easily set aside. With the proof or disproof however of this statement
I do not wish to concern myself. Granting the fact of survival I mean
to make a statement yet more important. It is this; there are many
modes of survival and not all are equally commendable. For instance,
mobility to beat a timely retreat may allow weaker varieties of people
to survive. So the capacity to grovel or lie low may equally as the
power of rising to the occasion be the condition of the survival of a
people. Consequently, it cannot be granted — as is usually supposed —
that because a people have survived through ages that therefore they
have been growing and improving through ages. Thus it is not survival
but the quality, the plane of survival, that is important. If the Indian
readers of Mr. Russell probe into the quality of their survival and
not remain contented merely with having survived I feel confident
that they will be convinced of the necessity of a revaluation of their
values of life.

This much for Mr. Russell’s outlook towards the philosophy of war.
We will now turn to his analysis of the effects of property. Mr. Russell
passes in review the various existing economic organizations of society,
the social ills they produce and the remedies put forth. His critique is
summarized by himself as follows:

“The evils of present system result from the separation between the

several interests of consumer, producer and capitalist. No one of these

three has the same interests as the community or as either of the other

two. The co-operative system amalgamates the interests of consumer and

8. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 96.

488

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

capitalist; syndicalism would amalgamate the interests of producer
and capitalists. Neither amalgamates all three, or makes the
interests of those who direct industry quite identical with those of
the community. Neither, therefore, would wholly prevent industrial
strife or obviate the need of the State as arbitrator. But either would
be better than the present system, and probably a mixture of both
would cure most of the evils of industrialism as it exists now. It is
surprising that, while men and women have struggled to achieve
political democracy, so little has been done to introduce democracy in
industry. I believe incalculable benefits might result from industrial
democracy either on the co-operative model or with recognition of a
trade or industry as a unit for purposes of Government, with some
kind of Home Rule such as syndicalism aims at securing. There is
no reason why all Governmental units should be geographical. The
system was necessary in the past because of the slowness of means
of communication, but it is not necessary now. By some such system
many men might come to feel again a pride in their work and to
find again that outlet for the creative impulse which is now denied
to all but a fortunate few. Such a system requires the abolition of
the land owner and the restriction of the Capitalist, but does not
entail equality of earnings. And unlike Socialism, it is not a static
or final system; it is hardly more than a frame-work for energy and
initiative. It is only by some such method, I believe that the free
growth of the individual can be reconciled with the huge technical
organizations which have been rendered necessary by industrialism ”. 9

It is a common place criticism of the industrial system that
it gives rise to compartmental ethics, dwarfs the personality
and makes slaves of the workers. To obviate such a result Mr.
Russell approaches with a cautious spirit, a breadth of outlook and
philosophic grasp of the social effects of the Economic Institutions.
I wish the same could be said of his analysis of the mental effects
of property. On the other hand his discussion of this aspect of
property is marked by certain misconceptions which it is necessary
to expose.

The first misconception is embodied in a statement about
the “love of money” in which he says “it leads men to mutilate
their own nature from a mistaken theory of what constitutes
success and to give admiration to enterprises which add nothing
to human welfare. It promotes a dead uniformity of character
and purpose, a diminution in the joy of life, and a stress and
strain which leaves whole communities weary, discouraged, and
disillusioned .” 10 This is a sentiment that smacks of the antique and

9. Principles of Social Reconstruction, pp, 141-42.

10. Ibid,, p. 113.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

489

once served as a basic philosophy of life, probably with justification. The
economic life and the philosophic outlook of a society are more intimately
connected than is commonly supposed 11 and chipped off its exaggerations,
the Economical Interpretation of History holds true. This time-honoured
complaint of the moralists against “love of money” is only a part of their
general complaint against the goods of the world and finds its justification
in the economic circumstances which gave rise to this particular belief.
Bearing this in mind, it becomes easy to understand why the philosophy
of sour grapes, of the have-nots, is the most human of all beliefs and why
it so largely pervades our values about things which we can and things
which we cannot possess in spite of our efforts to have them. When we
cannot have a thing we argue that it is not worth having. There is thus
a genuine difference between the outlooks of the “haves” and the “have-
nots” towards worldly goods as there is between the religions of the down-
cast and the successful. Each one in obedience to its profoundly moral
nature — moral even in its immorality in that it seeks justification for
everything it does — idealises its own attitude. At a time when the whole
world was living in “pain economy” as did the ancient world and when
the productivity of human labour was extremely low and when no efforts
could augment its return, in short, when the whole world was living in
poverty it is but natural that moralists should have preached the gospel of
poverty and renunciation of worldly pleasures only because they were not
to be had. The belief of a society of “pain economy” is that a thing must
be bad if it cannot be had just as a society of “pleasure economy” addicted
to “ conspicuous consumption “ believes that a thing must be nasty if it
is cheap. Neither does the re-statement of the evils of “love of money” by
Mr. Russell add any philosophic weight to its historic value. The
misconception arises from the fact that he criticises the love of money
without inquiring into the purpose of it. In a healthy mind, it may be
urged, there is no such thing as a love of money in the abstract. Love of
money is always for something and it is the purpose embodied in that “for
something” that will endow it with credit or cover it with shame. Having
regard to this, there can be no “dead uniformity of character” among the
individual for, though actuated by love of money, their purposes on different
occasions are likely to be different. Thus even love of money as a pursuit
may result in a variety of character.

If Mr. Russell’s thesis is shaky when looked at from the production
side of our life, it entirely falls to the ground when looked at from the
consumption side. Really to prove that human nature mutilates itself by
feeding, exclusively, some one appetite we shall have to find our support
by scrutinizing not the production but the consumption side of life. Now

11. Cf James Bonar “Philosophy in its Relation to Political Economy”, more particularly,
Achille Lorla, “Economic Foundations of Society”.

490

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

knowing as we do the laws of consumption 12 is there a possibility of such
mutilation? The answer, as we shall see, is in the negative.

The laws of consumption, it may be noted, are simply certain deductions
from the economic doctrine of the utility theory of value Formulated, as a
reaction to the classical theory by Cournot, Gossen, Walres Menger and
Jevons, it no longer thinks of utility as a quality inherent in the objective
thing or condition but as dependent upon the capacity it possesses to satisfy
human wants. This being so, the utility of an object varies according to the
varying condition of the organism needing satisfaction. Even an object of our
strongest desire like food may please or disgust, according as we are hungry
or have over-indulged the appetite. Thus utility diminishes as satisfaction
increases. In other words as satisfaction is the pleasurable activity of a
particular organ or a group of them, the curve representing the relation of
the organ to the object of its satisfaction varies inversely with the condition
of the organ.

If Mr. Russell had carefully gone into the implications of this psychological
analysis, he would certainly have avoided the misconception in question. For
what does the psychological analysis really mean ? Why does the utility of an
object tend to be zero or even negative ? This takes place it may be argued
either (1) because at some point in the process of satisfaction the particular
organ irritated ceases to derive any further satisfaction by feeding itself on
the object of its craving or (2) because other organs needing a different kind
of satisfaction clamour against the over-indulgence of some one organ at their
expense. Prof. Giddings holding the latter view says “ if the cravings of a
particular organ or a group of organs are being liberally met with appropriate
satisfactions, while other organs suffer deprivation, the neglected organs
set up a protest, which is usually sufficiently importunate to compel us to
attempt their appeasing. The hunger of the neglected parts of our nature
normally takes possession of consciousness, and diverts our attention and
our efforts from the organ which is receiving more than its due share of
indulgence”. 13 Of the two alternative explanations that of Prof. Giddings is
probably the more correct. Having regard to the behaviouristic hypothesis, of
the organism as an active entity, it is but proper to suppose that there does
exist this hunger of the entire organism for a varied satisfaction appropriate
to each of its organ which would engender such a protest. It is this protest
that compels obedience to what is called the law of variety in consumption.
If this is a fact it is difficult to understand how one organ by perpetual
dominance can mutilate the whole organism. On the other hand, though
one at a time, all the appetites have their turn. Human nature is, thus,
fortunately, provided by its very make-up against a one-sided development
leaving no doubt as to its promise for an all-round development in a
congenial environment. Whether it will be able to obtain the miscellaneous

12. For a brilliant discussion of them C/o. Prof. S. N. Patten’s “A Theory of Consumption”.

13. Democracy and Empire, p. 19.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

491

food-material, intellectual or spiritual it craves for is a matter beyond its
control. If it is mutilated by the lack of variety of food, it will be through
social default and not its own.

Another allegations of Mr. Russell is that property as the embodient of
the possessive instinct leads to war. One may agree with Mr. Russell and
yet say that Fredric Nietzsche understood the effects of property better than
Mr. Russell. This effect is well summed up in a story which Thucydides
relates somewhere. He depicts a farmer who having gathered his harvest
was sitting by the side of the heap brooding over the market and the gains
of his business; while deeply engrossed in his reverie he was surprised by a
robber. Thus aroused, the farmer, without even uttering a word of protest,
at once consented to share his pile and thanked heavens for having escaped
with the loss only of a half. Whether the above is a fact or a fable, it contains
a kernel of truth not always perceived. How much man is tamed of his wild
nature by his acquisitions through the course of time it is not possible to
measure. But that it is so is beyond doubt. Nietzsche was perfectly aware
of this and would not therefore let his Superman hold any property lest he
(the Superman) might not play the havoc Nietzsche wanted him to play for
the fear of losing his acquisitions in the bargain. The trouble therefore one
might say, is not with property but with the unequal distribution of it; for
those who have none of it are prone to perpetrate more destruction for its
possession than, those who have. An industrial dispute of the modern time
is another illustration and that workers, in a strike, use more violence than
their employers can only be understood in the light of the above remarks.
It is the existence of the stake that blunts the sword and it is the non-
existence thereof that sharpens it. Thus property may be aggressive. Yet it
is not without its compensating effects.

It would be unjust to pass over silently a most fundamental notion that
pervades the whole outlook of Mr. Russell. He says that “men’s impulses
and desires may be divided into those that are creative and those that are
possessive. Some of our activities are directed to creating what would not
otherwise exist, others towards acquiring or retaining what exists already.
The best life is that in which creative impulses play the largest part and
possessive impulses the smallest . 14 Is it possible so to divide the impulses ?
Is there such a thing as an impulse to appropriate? It is beyond the scope
of this review to discuss this large question. I simply intend to raise a query
because I feel, that by making the distinction as one of instinct, Mr. Russell
is not quite on safe ground. Every impulse if uninhibited, will lead to some
creative act. Whether the product will be appropriated or not is a matter
wholly different from any act of impulse or instinct. It depends, I submit,
upon the method of its production — whether individualistic or otherwise — and
upon the nature of its use — whether communal or otherwise. No one sets

14. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 234.

492

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

up a right of appropriation to anything that is produced by common efforts
nor to anything that is of joint use. Of the former one may cite the game
of a communal hunt of the primitive folks. For an example of the latter
the situation in a family presents a happy illustration, No member, it can
be said without fear of being challenged, will ever set up a right of private
appropriation to the articles of the Table or to the articles of decoration just
as nobody will ever set up a right of exclusive ownership regarding public
monuments. They are of the house. But every one of the family will surely
set up a right to the exclusive use of his or her clothes. They are of the
Individual. It is therefore, just a question of production and use and not of
impulse that a thing is appropriated. Thus the creative and the possessive
are on different levels and the methods of augmenting the former as of
diminishing the latter are bound to be different. The more of one will not
ensure the less of the latter.

With this we must close the review of Mr. Russell’s book. There is much in
it that can be laid at the foundation of the future reconstruction of Society.
Mr. Russell deserves full credit for having emphasized the psychic basis of
social life. Social reconstruction depends upon the right understanding of
the relation of individual to society — a problem which has eluded the grasp
of many sociologists. Mr. Russell’s conception of the relation — as being of
impulse to institution is, beyond doubt the truest. However, to understand
this and many other problems the book touches I will strongly recommend
the reader to go to the original. I have confined myself to putting Mr.
Russell in his right place where I thought he was likely to be misunderstood
and to guarding his uncritical readers against certain misconceptions that
may pass off unnoticed. In both cases I have attempted to do my duty to
Mr. Russell and to his readers.

• ••

INDEX

A

Aborigines: 46-52.

Act: Burmah Anti Boycott: 417-18.

Civil Rights Protection: 408.

Govt, of India, 1919: 322-24, 331.

Govt, of India, 1935: 283, 285-86, 292, 295, 308,
314, 322, 329, 331-32, 335, 343.

Acton, Lord: 122-24, 168.

Addison, Joseph: 267.

Agarkar, G. C.: 352.

Agra: 470.

Ahimsa: 93.

Alexander: 43, 213.

Allah: 91.

Ambedkar, B. R.: 31-33, 81-85.

America: 248, 284-85, 293, 295, 300.

American Economic Association: 467.

American Indians: 8.

Amritsar: 29.

Anandacharya, P.: 224.

Anaryas: 53.

Andhras: 105-06, 109,133.

Angell: 483.

Anglo Indians: 368-75.

Anvil Brahmin: 123.

Arabs: 44.

Arnold Mathew: 17, 95.

Arnold Thomus: 475.

Aryans: 6, 21.

Arya Samajists: 58-59, 63, 77, 92.

Ashoka: 159.

Ashtadhikar: 72.

Asia: 64.

Assam:, 103, 121, 470.

Attila: 213.

Aungier, Governor: 114.

Austria: 124.

Austro-Hungarian Empire: 104

B

Bagehot, Walter: 18,231.

Balais: 39-40, 114-16.

Balfour: 231-32.

Baluchis: 248.

Banias: 67, 90. 115-16.

Baroda Committee: 460, 462-66, 476.

Baroda State: 456, 471.

Bateson, Prof,: 49
Benaras: 44

Benaras Hindu University: 425.

Bengal: 103, 121, 126, 131, 135.

Bengalis: 106, 126.

Berar: 109, 470.

Berkenhead, Lord: 110, 378.

Bhagwat: 64.

Bhai Parmanand: 29.

Bhandarkar, D. R.: 48.

Bhils: 248.

Bhimji Parakh: 114.

Bhishma: 240.

Bhopal: 131,152.

Bhungis: 11, 30.

Bible: 220.

Bicholi Hapsi: 39, 131, 135.

Bihar: 103. 109. 120-21, 148, 150-51.

Bismark: 231-32.

Blue Ridge: 234.

Bombay: 27-28. 34. 37, 109-14, 118-21, 125-27,
144-45, 155-58, 165, 258,417.

Bombay Army: 261.

Bonnerjee, Surendranath: 276, 352.

Bonnerjee, W. C: 38-39,41.

Brahma: 91, 342.

Brahmins: 15-16, 18-20, 37, 49, 52-53, 59, 61-62,
64, 70-71, 74, 83, 90, 95, 115-16, 134, 158, 162,
218-21, 253-56, 267-69, 274 of Ver; : 115-16.

Brahminism: 31, 77.

Brahmo Samaj: 268.

Brihaspati: 73.

British, the; 113-14, 131

Bryce, James: 143, 236-38, 316-17.

Buckle: 212.

Buddha: 44, 69, 91, 219, 240.

Buddhists: 248.

Bundelkhand: 470.

Burke, Edmand: 76, 79, 222.

Burmah: 248.

C

Caesar: 213.

Caird, Sir James: 473-74.

Calcutta: 102, 104, 121, 124, 126, 156, 171.
Cambridge: 39.

Canada: 144, 284-86, 295, 301, 307, 309, 344, 426.
Carlyle: 65, 90, 213-15, 224, 230.

Carson: 378.

Carver: 78.

Caste and Caste System: 5, 7-22, 27-28, 31, 33, 41,
47-58, 60, 62, 64-74, 83-84, 87-93.

Catholies: 42.

Cawnpore: 151.

C. P. & Berar: 103, 109, 111, 148, 150, 151.
Chaitanya: 83, 88-89.

Chakwara: 40.

Chalukyas: 112.

Chamars: 49, 257, 275.

Chandragupta: 44.

Chaturvarnya: 58-64, 86, 89.

China: 234-35.

Chiplunkar, Vishnushastri: 218.

Christ: 244, 264.

Christians: 16, 20, 45, 54, 80, 85, 94, 115, 116,
134, 249-50, 267, 365, 368-71, 373, 375, 423.
Church, American Protestant Episcopal; 143, 317.
Clemenceau: 214.

Clement: 294.

Coleridge : 222.

Columbia University: 274.

Communal Award: 42-43.

Congress : 38-39, 131, 145, 217, 219, 224-25, 228,
236-37, 263, 297, 329-30 334, 348, 350, 358.
Consent Bill: 225.

Constituent Assembly: 360-61, 364, 366.
Constitution of America: 360, 377;

Canada: 294, India: 358-60, 367;

South Africa: 375.

Cotton, Sir Henry: 479.

Cournot: 490.

Cripps Committee: 361-65.

Crito: 235.

Cromwellian war; 52
Crump: 276.

D

Dadabhoy Naoroji: 264.

Daman: 112.

Dantwala: 111, 119, 122-23.

Dashodh: 37.

Datta, K.L. 470.

Davenport, H. J,: 467.

Dayanand Saraswati: 92.

Deccan Sabha: 207.

Delaware: 108.

Delhi: 170.

Democles: 416.

Democracy: 251.

Denmark: 456

494

INDEX

Depressed Classes: 34, 37, 84.

Depressed Class Mission: 34, 265.

Desai, Morarji: 155,162.

Dewey, John: 79.

Dhar: 132.

Dheds: 257.

Dicey: 70, 302, 334.

Dictatorship: 411-12.

Diu, city of: 115.

Dnyaneshwar: 83, 88.

Dominion Status: 330, 331, 333-34, 345-48, 359.
Dravidians: 6, 21.

Dufferin, Lord: 247.

Dutch: 114, 248.

E

East India Company: 53, 114-18, 220, 261.
Education: 484.

Eknath: 87.

Elphinston: 274.

Ely: 469.

Endogamy: 8-12, 14.

England 44, 300, 365, 368, 456, 473.

English People: 114-15.

Ethnology: 5.

Eton: 269.

Eugenics 49, 50.

Europe: 44-45, 63-64, 102, 112, 120, 248.
Europeans: 119-20, 364.

Exogamy: 9-10.

F

Falcon, the: 114.

France: 456.

Franklin, Doctor: 455.

French: 114, 118, 143.

French Revolution: 168.

Fundamental Rights: 377.

G

Gadgil, D. R.: 113,125, 281-83.

Gandhi, Mahatma: 37, 68, 86-96, 131, 134,
208-09, 226, 228-29, 346, 350-52, 422.

Gardiner: 227.

Gazetteer of Bombay Town and Island: 114.
Germans: 462

Germany: 143, 147, 284-285, 311, 325, 378.
Gheewala: 111, 113,123-25.

Giddings: 490.

Giffen Robert: 479.

Girdhar Moody: 117.

Gladstone: 269.

Gokhale, G. K.: 269, 283, 352.

Gonds: 248.

Gotra: 9.

Gujarat: 470.

Gujaratis, the: 67, 110, 111-15, 119-120, 122-24.
Gujars: 134.

Great Man: 212-17, 224, 226, 230, 232.

H

Hailey: 270.

Hansraj, Mahatma: 28.

Har Bhagwan: 29-30, 32.

Harijan ((Community): 27.

Harijan (Journal): 27, 82, 86.

Haripura: 329.

Harrow: 249.

Hart, A. B.: 247.

Hindus; 6, 13, 15-22, 25, 28-31, 33, 35-37, 39-40, 50-
57, 59, 63-66, 72-74, 76-79, 84-85, 88-89, 91-92,
94-96,112, 134, 146, 167, 169, 209, 224, 248-50,
252, 256, 261-62, 264, 267, 270, 274, 276-79,

348-50, 362, 364-65, 368-71, 373-74 376-78,414,
416-17, 420-23, 425-56, 431, 461.

Hindu Maha Sabha: 28, 146, 350.

Hindu Raj: 37.

Hindu Religion: 31-34, 75-76, 83, 93, 135.

Hirey: 162.

Hobhouse, L. T.:261.

Holland: 456.

Home Rule: 267.

I

Ibbetson, Sir Denzil: 17.

India: 6, 8-9, 14, 16, 25, 45-47, 50, 111-13, 121, 126,
131, 456, 466, 479.

Indian Army Commission: 261.

Indian Merchants Chamber: 110.

Indore: 152.

Indra Singh: 27.

Instrument of Accession: 286-88, 292, 301-02, 306,
336-38.

Interdining: 67-68, 92.

Intermarriage: 67-68, 92.

Iqbal Mohomed: 342.

Ireland: 42-43, 365, 378.

Irish Home Rule: 42.

Italy: 143.

J

Jadhav, Ganpat Mahadev: 357.

Jaimini: 75.

Jains: 67.

James Elliot: 470.

Jan Sangh: 146.

Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal: 25, 27-37, 67, 81, 84-86.

Jats: 417-418.

Jat State: 134.

Jennings: 237.

Jevons, H. S.: 461, 464-66, 474-77, 479.

Jews: 20, 134, 222, 251.

Jinnah: 208-09, 226, 228-29, 337.

Jnyandeo: 83, 87.

K

Kabir: 74.

Kale, R. R.: 283.

Kali: 91.

Kammas, the: 134.

Kappus, the: 134.

Karnatak: 109,113.

Karwar: 112.

Kashmir: 133.

Kathiawar: 120.

Kaurava: 240.

Kavitha: 40.

Kayastha: 52,67.

Keatinge, G. M.: 457, 462-64, 466, 476.

Keralat: 109.

Ketkar, S. V.: 7-8, 13, 21.

Khaparde Dadasaheb: 264.

Kheri Jessore: 417-18.

Kalis, the: 134.

Konkan: 110, 256.

Kranti: 27.

Krishna: 64.

Kshatriya: 17-18, 59, 61-62, 64, 91.

Kumarswami, A. K.: 13.

Kurtakoti, Shankaracharya: 270.

L

Labour and Caste System: 47-48, 61, 64.

Lahore: 28, 37.

Land Acquisition Act: 340, 463.

Land Revenue Code: 476.

Lassalle, Ferdinand: 42.

INDEX

495

League of Nations: 102, 376.

Lecky: 223.

Legislature: 393-95, 398, 404, 406.

Liberal Party of India: 236, 238-40.

Liberty; 57, 86,

Lincoln, Abraham: 215, 234.

Lingayats: 253-254, 273.

Linguistic Provinces: 101-03, 109, 121-22, 124-25, 132.
London Times: 478.

Lothian Committee: 429.

Luther, Martin: 44.

M

Macaulay: 324.

Machigars: 257.

Madig: 257.

Madras: 21, 103, 132, 144, 156, 470.

Mahabharata: 64, 73, 82.

Mahakoshal: 152.

Mahars: 211, 248, 253-54, 256-57, 274-75, 346.
Maharashtra: 102, 106, 108-13, 118-27, 132-34, 144-53.
Maharashtrians: 105-06, 110, 121-22, 134.
Mahavamsa: 159-61.

Maheswara: 13.

Maitland, Prof.: 233.

Malis: 134.

Mangs: 257.

Mann, H. S. 457.

Manu: 16-63, 71-74, 218-19.

Manusmruti: 61, 73.

Marathas: 113, 121, 123, 134, 161-63, 253, 256, 261,
273-74.

Marquis Tweedledale: 261.

Marwaris: 67.

Marx, Karl: 42, 72, 212.

Mathai, John: 165.

Mazzini: 239-40.

Mecca: 44.

Meerut: 151.

Mehta, Nani: 351.

Mehta, Phirozeshah: 352.

Menger: 490.

Mill, J. S.: 41.

Mochis: 257.

Moghuls: 170.

Mohammed, Prophet: 44, 264.

Mongolians: 6, 248.

Montague: 267.

Montague Chelmsford Reform: 322.

Morley, Lord: 231-32, 262, 265.

Morris: 55.

Mourya Empire: 63,135.

Mulhall: 472.

Muslims: 20, 53-55, 64-65, 70, 80, 85, 93, 112, 115,
134. 146, 169, 248, 250, 252-54, 256,263, 267,
273-76, 348-50, 362, 364-65, 368-72, 374, 376-77,
422-423, ,461.

Muslim League: 228.

N

Nanak: 69.

Nanak, Guru: 44.

Nanavati. M. B.:471.

Nanga Sadhus: 149.

Napoleon, Bonaparte: 213-14, 234-35, 269.

Narang, Gokalchand: 28.

Narendranath, Raja: 28.

Natarajan: 276.

Nationality: 123-25.

National Liberation Federation: 329-330.

Negroes: 8, 222, 408.

Nehru, Jawaharlal: 131, 133, 145, 149, 152.

Nesfields: 7-8,17.

New York: 108,147.

Nietzsche, Fredric: 486,491.

Nima Parakh: 115-18.

Nizam: 162.

Non-Brahmins: 15-16, 19-20, 50, 253, 274.

North West Frontier Provinces: 401.

O

Ohio: 231.

Oracle of Delphi: 45.

Orissa: 103, 121, 131.

Oxford: 39.

P

Pakistan: 146, 376.

Pali: 159.

Pandava: 240.

Pannikar, K. M.: 147-48.

Pant, G. V.: 151.

Paramanand, Bhai: 28.

Pariah: 49,407.

Parliament: 69-70.

Parliamentary Democracy: 411-12.

Parsees: 20, 250, 370, 375.

Parsuram: 91.

Patel Vallabhbhai: 132.

Patel Vitthalbhai: 266.

Pathans: 248.

Patidars: 123.

Patricians: 43, 45.

Pax Britanica: 233.

Pendleton Herring: 239.

Peshwa: 39-54, 216.

Phuley, Mahatma: 225-26.

Pierson, N. G.: 462.

Pimpla Saudagar: 457.

Pius IX (Pope): 227.

Plebians: 43, 45.

Poles: 248.

Political Reform Party: 37,

Pompeii: 5.

Poona: 131, 263, 457.

Poona Pact: 401, 409, 421, 424-25, 429-3.

Pope: 264.

Poritt: 426.

Portuguese: 114-15.

Prabhus, Pathare: 53-54.

Prakasham T.: 132.

Prarthana Samaj: 268.

Protestants: 43.

Prussia: 42, 147.

Punjab: 19, 27, 30, 41, 103, 121.

Puranas: 64,76,82,92.

Puritanism: 44.

Q

Quebec: 427.

R

Radhakrishnan, S.: 66.

Radicals: 263.

Raja, M. C: 82.

Rajasthan: 148.

Rajendra Prasad: 132.

Rajgopalachari, C.: 133, 149-50, 237.

Rama: 61, 69, 86.

Ramanuja: 74.

Ramayana: 82, 61.

Ramdas: 37.

Ramkrishna Paramhamsa: 83, 88.

Ranade, M. G.: 162, 207, 211-12, 215-16, 220-26,
230-40, 352.

Redmond: 42, 110, 378.

Risley, Sir H.: 7-8, 17.

Rohtak: 417-18.

R Roman Republic: 44.

496

INDEX

Rome: 43, 45.

Roosevelt, Theodore: 212, 227.

Rosebery, Lord: 213.

Round Table Conference: 342, 350-51, 378.

Roy, Raja Ram Mohan: 83.

Russell, Bertrand: 483-84, 488-92; on
Impulse: 485-86; on property: 487;
on war: 483.

S

Sagotras: 9.

Sahara: 132.

Sahyadrikhand: 52.

Samson, the: 114.

Sangathan: 55.

Sankhya: 219.

Sanskrit: 12, 50.

Santram: 24, 27-28, 30, 32, 84-85, 93.

Sanyasa: 13.

Sapindas: 9,

Sapru Committee: 361-62, 364-65, 379, 416.

Sati: 13, 20.

Scheduled Castes: 37, 39-41, 74, 133, 157, 250,
252-58, 261-65, 268, 271, 274-76, 358, 365,
368-72, 401-04, 407, 414, 416-17, 419-23, 425-
26, 428-31.

Scheduled Caste Federation; 375.

Scotland: 300, 365.

Scythians: 6.

Secretary of State: 311, 332, 335-36, 345,

Senart: 6-7, 17.

Separate Electorates: 401.

Settlement Commission: 403.

Shambuka: 61.

Shankar or Shiva: 9,342.

Shastras: 16, 68-69, 73-76, 84, 87-88, 93, 95, 263.
Shastri, Srinivas: 211, 240.

Shilahars: 112.

Shivaji: 37, 44, 50, 52,

Shore, John: 269.

Shuddhi: 55.

Shudra: 18, 58, 61-62.

Sikhs: 44, 55, 64-65. 80, 248, 364-65, 368-71, 373,
375, 423.

Simla: 170.

Simon Commission; 332, 421.

Sind: 271, 276.

Slater. Gilbert: 457.

Sly, Sir Frank; 38.40-41, 274.

Smith, Adam: 456.

Smritis: 73-75, 82.

Social Conference: 217, 225, 263.

Socialism: 460. Socialists: 44-47.

Social Reform Party; 37-38, 41-42.

Socrates: 235.

Solicitor-General: 335-36.

Sonar: 53-54,

South Africa: 144, 426, 428.

Spencer, Sir, Herbert: 17.

Srinivasan, Diwan Bahadur: 82.

Sriramulu, Potti: 132.

States, Indian: 203-04. 286-88, 301-02, 308, 311-12,
317-21, 327, 332-33, 339-41, 343-47.

States Reorganisation Commission: 141-42.

State Socialism: 408-09, 411.

Stephen, Leslie: 71.

St. Helena: 235.

Sultan: 69,264.

Supreme Court; 395, 398.

Superintendent of Minority Affairs: 398.

Surat: 114, 274.

Surplus Man: 10-14

Surplus Woman: 10-14.

Swedes: 248.

Switzerland: 144, 284-85, 311, 335.

Sydenham College: 274.

T

Tagore, Devendranath: 83.

Tamerlane: 214.

Tamillants: 105-06.

Tamils: 132,

Tarde, Gabriel: 19-20.

Taylor, Henry C.: 467.

Telang, Justice: 221.

Texas; 108.

Thakkar Bappa: 346.

Thana: 272.

Thayer: 212.

Tibet: 371.

Tilak, B. G.: 38, 87, 162, 217-18, 229, 270, 352.
Times of India: 39.

Tiruvallur: 83, 88.

Toby, Sir: 237.

Tories: 263.

Thorndike, E L,: 483.

Tral Maharashtrikas; 159-60.

Tribes, Criminal: 219-20.

Trimurti: 342.

Tukaram: 83, 88.

Turkish Empire: 104,

U

Ulster: 43,

Uma: 13,

United Provinces: 103, 121, 148, 150-51.

United States of India: 143, 389-90, 392, 395-98,
402, 405-06.

Untouchables, see S. Cs.

Untouchability: 87-88.

Upanishads: 18, 82, 92.

U.S.A.: 8, 108, 143, 147, 478-79.

U.S.S.R.: 147, 408, 415, 428.

V

Vakil, N.C.: 111, 113, 119, 121-122.

Valshashlka: 219.

Vaishya: 18, 59, 61-62, 90.

Varna: 64, 73, 83-84, 86-87, 89, 91-92.

Veda: 17, 30-31, 63, 69, 72-76, 82, 92-93.
Vedanta: 219.

Vishnu: 90, 342.

Vivekanand: 83.

W

Walres: 490.

Wanchoo, Justice: 133.

War; 484.

Warangal: 133.

War or Roses: 52.

Washington City: 313-14.

Waterloo: 235.

Wellington: 269.

Wilson, Woodrow: 239.

Wiseman, Cardinal: 215.

Wyoming: 108.

Y

Young, A. A.: 91, 467
Young India: 97.

Yuan Shih-K’ai : 235

Z

Zanu: 40